Is “Strings” a Dud Theory?
Mohammad Gill February 1, 2007
#110 Posted by ronw696 on March 27, 2007 9:02:23 pm
I am amazed in the manner in which the so called brilliant scientist are so closed minded to say things like `` So in their opinion, string theory is not scientific in the usual Popperian sense because it cannot be falsified.``
Now come on bright boys why is it so hard to believe or even look to the possibility that the string that binds us into assuming that string theory cannot be falsified is naive...why not the possibility that that our first step to understanding this lies in the first sentence of the new theory of everything by dimitri nanopoulos where he states, ``the key point was when we realized that strings dont have the specific representation-oh jesus.`` thus the point is that we are being deceived because we dont understand the specific represention of strings, but when we do that will open the door, per se, the key point...of that which we assume cannot be given to us unless it is real...are lies not as powerful as truths? Read ``string theory reveals the sin and the paradox,`` which will be published this year and then you will see the reason the scientist havent found the answer is because they are only looking in the lab and strings are everywhere...right...but those strings are connected to actions and or contracts....wake up guys...it ain`t about your credentials or where you teach if you speak so negatively when you admit you dont have the answer...so say I dont k know but the answer may be in the near future...so sad to be so negative when the answers are right before all our eyes....you will see that specific representation in the near future....this is one of those hear me now believe me later things...get out of the lab and look around you in this great big vacuum we are living in...dont want to give to much away just read ``string theory reveals the sin and the paradox.`` then your eyes will be opened :o)
Now come on bright boys why is it so hard to believe or even look to the possibility that the string that binds us into assuming that string theory cannot be falsified is naive...why not the possibility that that our first step to understanding this lies in the first sentence of the new theory of everything by dimitri nanopoulos where he states, ``the key point was when we realized that strings dont have the specific representation-oh jesus.`` thus the point is that we are being deceived because we dont understand the specific represention of strings, but when we do that will open the door, per se, the key point...of that which we assume cannot be given to us unless it is real...are lies not as powerful as truths? Read ``string theory reveals the sin and the paradox,`` which will be published this year and then you will see the reason the scientist havent found the answer is because they are only looking in the lab and strings are everywhere...right...but those strings are connected to actions and or contracts....wake up guys...it ain`t about your credentials or where you teach if you speak so negatively when you admit you dont have the answer...so say I dont k know but the answer may be in the near future...so sad to be so negative when the answers are right before all our eyes....you will see that specific representation in the near future....this is one of those hear me now believe me later things...get out of the lab and look around you in this great big vacuum we are living in...dont want to give to much away just read ``string theory reveals the sin and the paradox.`` then your eyes will be opened :o)
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#109 Posted by zensufi on March 19, 2007 2:11:34 am
Hallo - enjoyed this! Yes... string theory is NOT dead... yes, it is alive and jumping!
-zensufi-
-zensufi-
#108 Posted by khuram on February 12, 2007 12:22:42 am
Well,,,
Interesting discussion going on ... but unfortunately my PC could not bear my ideas and so gone out of order. Now I have found access to NET for just limited time, so cannot come up with detailed replies.
Anyway... as I found some time for `thinking`, so I evaluated the possiblity of ``n-dimensions``. I cannot write on this issue in details now. But let me accept the possiblity of ``n-dimensions`` in ``non-spatial`` sense. It means that up till now I am not ready to accept the possibility that the ``space`` in which we physically live, can have more basic dimensions than to (i)Length, (ii)Height and; (iii) width.
The possibility of n-dimensions which I can understand, and which I am ready to accept is non-spatial in nature. For example we can subjectively or arbitrarily choose more than three dimensions for the progresss of a country. Lets say those dimensions are (i)Health Services, (ii) Level of Education, (iii) Sports and Entertainment Activities and; (iV) Social Order or law and Order etc.
Now these are non-spatial four dimensions. Without going into details, I am ready to accept that it is possible to evalute these matters in some form of geometric n-dimensional vectors.
And as i had access to internet for just limited time, so I cud share only this.
And let me also accept that oppossing arguments of other members to my criticism also important and possess weight. If I openly disagree on board then it does not mean that I do not try to positively evaluate opposing opinions when I am not on board.
Thanks & Regards!
Interesting discussion going on ... but unfortunately my PC could not bear my ideas and so gone out of order. Now I have found access to NET for just limited time, so cannot come up with detailed replies.
Anyway... as I found some time for `thinking`, so I evaluated the possiblity of ``n-dimensions``. I cannot write on this issue in details now. But let me accept the possiblity of ``n-dimensions`` in ``non-spatial`` sense. It means that up till now I am not ready to accept the possibility that the ``space`` in which we physically live, can have more basic dimensions than to (i)Length, (ii)Height and; (iii) width.
The possibility of n-dimensions which I can understand, and which I am ready to accept is non-spatial in nature. For example we can subjectively or arbitrarily choose more than three dimensions for the progresss of a country. Lets say those dimensions are (i)Health Services, (ii) Level of Education, (iii) Sports and Entertainment Activities and; (iV) Social Order or law and Order etc.
Now these are non-spatial four dimensions. Without going into details, I am ready to accept that it is possible to evalute these matters in some form of geometric n-dimensional vectors.
And as i had access to internet for just limited time, so I cud share only this.
And let me also accept that oppossing arguments of other members to my criticism also important and possess weight. If I openly disagree on board then it does not mean that I do not try to positively evaluate opposing opinions when I am not on board.
Thanks & Regards!
#107 Posted by NangaPir on February 11, 2007 10:20:01 am
Someone tried to introduced me to myself that Nanga is promoting sufism. What a dungroller brain. Nanga is neither sufi nor promotes sufisim. But knows well that the CIA is on its way to pin sufism against whabiism. That is is different talk. As far as religion is concerned, Nanga is superspirtitual. Now back to string theory. Can we test it?
First is that all these experiments that are conducted by accelerating particles are not the true expression of particles anyway. When we bunch electrons or other charged particles with electromagentics in a microwave cavity before injecting them into accelerator we modify them for our own convience. We essentially change them. It is similar that we can figure out the distance between two peeks on mountain ridges by using inverse square law but we do not know what is in between two peeks i.e., is it a deep gorge, river, lake, valley, etc. Or take it another way even twin brothers who conceived just seconds aprart from each others have different personalities. More than 99.9% theoritical physicists do not understand quantum science and the rest who do is like teenagers who claim they had sex but did not know how good. It may lead to pregnancy. And there are Gul Munds who read quantum books written for layman. Just grab one at train station and you are in it. That is how it gets confused and confusion grows.
Can we measure the string effects. Yes it will be. If we have huge detector like human body and string entangled like homoeopathic remedy then we will be able to see the effects. But it needs a lot more imagination, thinknig and working.
Nanga Pir
First is that all these experiments that are conducted by accelerating particles are not the true expression of particles anyway. When we bunch electrons or other charged particles with electromagentics in a microwave cavity before injecting them into accelerator we modify them for our own convience. We essentially change them. It is similar that we can figure out the distance between two peeks on mountain ridges by using inverse square law but we do not know what is in between two peeks i.e., is it a deep gorge, river, lake, valley, etc. Or take it another way even twin brothers who conceived just seconds aprart from each others have different personalities. More than 99.9% theoritical physicists do not understand quantum science and the rest who do is like teenagers who claim they had sex but did not know how good. It may lead to pregnancy. And there are Gul Munds who read quantum books written for layman. Just grab one at train station and you are in it. That is how it gets confused and confusion grows.
Can we measure the string effects. Yes it will be. If we have huge detector like human body and string entangled like homoeopathic remedy then we will be able to see the effects. But it needs a lot more imagination, thinknig and working.
Nanga Pir
#106 Posted by okhla99 on February 11, 2007 7:31:00 am
Khuram,
With reference to your #88,
You are one of the most intelligent non- scientists I have encountered.
Your reasoning and logic is unconventional but does not lack depth.
I read all your interacts once again. This time they made more sense.
Do not give up thinking. Do express yourself. My suggestion would be to
add some qualifiers. This would prevent knee-jerk reactions from conventional ``scientists``.
Have fun......
#105 Posted by khurram on February 10, 2007 11:55:02 am
I am a bit confused by this digression into interpretations of quantum mechanics. The various explanations seem to raise more questions than they answer. First of all the `parallel universe` theory mentioned by Mr Gill is a minority view and not the definitive interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are issues with it that merit a whole article.
The majority subscribes to the `Copenhagen` interpretation. The thought experiment with Schrodinger`s Cat is intended to demonstrate an apparent paradox with this interpretation. Consider the case of a particle that has a 50/50 chance of being in state A or state B. When the particle is observed, it will be found to be in state A or B. Over a large number of observations it will appear in each state 50% of the time. But what about the state of the particle BEFORE the observation. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, it is NOT correct to say that the particle is in state A or B but we don`t know which one. We must accept that the particle is in some undefined state that is neither A nor B but some kind of a mathematical superposition of the 2 states. It is the act of observation that `collapses` the superposition into a definite state (A or B).
Schrodinger`s thought experiment imagines a cat in a box. There is some kind of intricate equipment in the box that determines the state (A or B) of a fundamental particle. If the particle is found to be in state A, the mechanism causes poison to be released and kill the cat. Only if we open the box will we find if the cat is alive or dead. So, if the Copenhagen interpretation says that before the observation the particle is in an undefined A-B state, what does it have to say about the cat? Is it in some undefined dead-alive state?
The majority subscribes to the `Copenhagen` interpretation. The thought experiment with Schrodinger`s Cat is intended to demonstrate an apparent paradox with this interpretation. Consider the case of a particle that has a 50/50 chance of being in state A or state B. When the particle is observed, it will be found to be in state A or B. Over a large number of observations it will appear in each state 50% of the time. But what about the state of the particle BEFORE the observation. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, it is NOT correct to say that the particle is in state A or B but we don`t know which one. We must accept that the particle is in some undefined state that is neither A nor B but some kind of a mathematical superposition of the 2 states. It is the act of observation that `collapses` the superposition into a definite state (A or B).
Schrodinger`s thought experiment imagines a cat in a box. There is some kind of intricate equipment in the box that determines the state (A or B) of a fundamental particle. If the particle is found to be in state A, the mechanism causes poison to be released and kill the cat. Only if we open the box will we find if the cat is alive or dead. So, if the Copenhagen interpretation says that before the observation the particle is in an undefined A-B state, what does it have to say about the cat? Is it in some undefined dead-alive state?
#104 Posted by GT on February 10, 2007 11:07:25 am
Gill:
L. Román, B. Rumbos: Quantum logic revisited, Found. Phys. 21 (1991) 727-734.
(and the references therein).
#103 Posted by GT on February 10, 2007 10:10:57 am
Re: # 99 by khalihawa:
Sorry,
I should have specified things better. I am talking about the content of predictions and not the model or theory from which the prediction arose.
Sorry,
I should have specified things better. I am talking about the content of predictions and not the model or theory from which the prediction arose.
#102 Posted by GT on February 10, 2007 10:08:59 am
Re: # 101
Gill:
I do not take ``parallel universes`` literally, though it is fine if one were to think of it that way for one`s own clarity. I have no problems with Hilbert spaces. I shall put up a reference soon.
Thanks.
Gill:
I do not take ``parallel universes`` literally, though it is fine if one were to think of it that way for one`s own clarity. I have no problems with Hilbert spaces. I shall put up a reference soon.
Thanks.
#101 Posted by freethinker on February 10, 2007 10:03:01 am
Posts # 97,98,99,100:
Let me try to clarify the probability issue in the perspective of quantum mechanics. All probabilities which the theory predicts are realized in ``parallel universes.`` A probability of 0.50 and 0.50 doesn`t mean that half of Schrodinger`s cat is dead and half alive. It simply means that the cat is dead in one universe and alive in another parallel universe. The theory of parallel universes was formulated by Hugh Everett in 1967.
Those of you who want to know more about it and have time and patience, should read ``Parallel Universes by Fred Alan Wolf``. Those who don`t want to spend this effort can read my article ``Cosmological Fantasies,`` which was published at Chowk on November 17, 2004.
Mohammad Gill
Let me try to clarify the probability issue in the perspective of quantum mechanics. All probabilities which the theory predicts are realized in ``parallel universes.`` A probability of 0.50 and 0.50 doesn`t mean that half of Schrodinger`s cat is dead and half alive. It simply means that the cat is dead in one universe and alive in another parallel universe. The theory of parallel universes was formulated by Hugh Everett in 1967.
Those of you who want to know more about it and have time and patience, should read ``Parallel Universes by Fred Alan Wolf``. Those who don`t want to spend this effort can read my article ``Cosmological Fantasies,`` which was published at Chowk on November 17, 2004.
Mohammad Gill
#100 Posted by GT on February 10, 2007 9:19:36 am
Re: # 97 by khalihawa:
You could use probability 1/2, 1/2 if you want. But not 1/2 dead 1/2 alive. The problem with quantum mechanics is not probability per se. It is the fact that the `probability` measures may not add up to one.
You could use probability 1/2, 1/2 if you want. But not 1/2 dead 1/2 alive. The problem with quantum mechanics is not probability per se. It is the fact that the `probability` measures may not add up to one.
#99 Posted by kalihawa on February 10, 2007 9:18:30 am
Re: # 98
I was refering to GT`s infinite number of cats in boxes. What I meant was how this 2/3 alive and 1/3 dead probability came about.
I was refering to GT`s infinite number of cats in boxes. What I meant was how this 2/3 alive and 1/3 dead probability came about.
#98 Posted by Inquirer on February 10, 2007 7:50:13 am
Re: # 97:
Quantum Mechanics is a probabilistic theory. Based principally on the Heisenberg`s Uncertainty Principle and Born`s interpretation of the wave function which is the solution of the differential equation derived from the conservation of energy. In other words, the wave function is the specification of the possibilities of reaching energy states for a system if the conservation energy principle is valid.
General theory of relativity, on the other hand, is a deterministic theory which does not approach reality via a methodology of the assumed function. It depends only on the quantities that are measurable - accurately, subject to the instruments of assessment, only.
There is no significance of half dead of a tenth dead.
Quantum Mechanics is a probabilistic theory. Based principally on the Heisenberg`s Uncertainty Principle and Born`s interpretation of the wave function which is the solution of the differential equation derived from the conservation of energy. In other words, the wave function is the specification of the possibilities of reaching energy states for a system if the conservation energy principle is valid.
General theory of relativity, on the other hand, is a deterministic theory which does not approach reality via a methodology of the assumed function. It depends only on the quantities that are measurable - accurately, subject to the instruments of assessment, only.
There is no significance of half dead of a tenth dead.
#97 Posted by kalihawa on February 9, 2007 9:14:45 pm
Re: # 96
Thanks GT.
Your explanation leaves me more confused. Why 2/3 and 1/3 probability?Why not half dead and half alive?
Thanks GT.
Your explanation leaves me more confused. Why 2/3 and 1/3 probability?Why not half dead and half alive?
#96 Posted by GT on February 9, 2007 2:02:07 pm
Re: # 93
khalihawa:
It is known that there is a cat in a closed box which you cannot see or hear and you are not allowed to toch the box etc. etc. You may have past information on the cat. You are asked to predict whether the cat is `alive` or `dead`. According to Schrodinger if you are not able to do so then you simply cannot predict period. In other words Schrodinger claims that a model which predicts that the cat is alive with probability 2/3 and dead with probability 1/3 is not a valid model of nature because the cat cannot be alive and dead at the same time.
But I believe that Schrodinger would have no problem with the following: Take a countably infinite number of cats who were identical in each and every way before being put in individual identical boxes. Then predicting that 2/3 of these boxes would have live cats and 1/3 dead cats is OK! Also, the prediction that a random draw will draw a box with a live cat with probability 2/3 is also OK!
Given that he is dead, I do not know whether he would agree with me or not.
khalihawa:
It is known that there is a cat in a closed box which you cannot see or hear and you are not allowed to toch the box etc. etc. You may have past information on the cat. You are asked to predict whether the cat is `alive` or `dead`. According to Schrodinger if you are not able to do so then you simply cannot predict period. In other words Schrodinger claims that a model which predicts that the cat is alive with probability 2/3 and dead with probability 1/3 is not a valid model of nature because the cat cannot be alive and dead at the same time.
But I believe that Schrodinger would have no problem with the following: Take a countably infinite number of cats who were identical in each and every way before being put in individual identical boxes. Then predicting that 2/3 of these boxes would have live cats and 1/3 dead cats is OK! Also, the prediction that a random draw will draw a box with a live cat with probability 2/3 is also OK!
Given that he is dead, I do not know whether he would agree with me or not.
#95 Posted by kalihawa on February 9, 2007 5:12:59 am
Re: # 94
``In other systems, why criticism of individual viewpoints should ``cause pain`` is hard to understand``
It is not hard to understand. First of all Mind is abstract distinct from brain, something like a software and pain is kind of a boolean state just as pleasure, with degrees intensity. If we can understand this then pain and pleasure will mean nothing except that it is easier said then achieved.
``In other systems, why criticism of individual viewpoints should ``cause pain`` is hard to understand``
It is not hard to understand. First of all Mind is abstract distinct from brain, something like a software and pain is kind of a boolean state just as pleasure, with degrees intensity. If we can understand this then pain and pleasure will mean nothing except that it is easier said then achieved.
#94 Posted by KaalChakra on February 9, 2007 12:34:27 am
khuram
# 92 underlines the real issue. In all human-logic based dynamic doctrines (science being one part of this universe) criticism of individual viewpoints is accepted as a natural element of the whole system. And criticism is criticized when it is based on faulty information, faulty logic or faulty motives.
In other systems, why criticism of individual viewpoints should ``cause pain`` is hard to understand. Few of these lack greatly honed traditions of criticism. In reality, far more than criticism has been standard practice.
# 92 underlines the real issue. In all human-logic based dynamic doctrines (science being one part of this universe) criticism of individual viewpoints is accepted as a natural element of the whole system. And criticism is criticized when it is based on faulty information, faulty logic or faulty motives.
In other systems, why criticism of individual viewpoints should ``cause pain`` is hard to understand. Few of these lack greatly honed traditions of criticism. In reality, far more than criticism has been standard practice.
#93 Posted by kalihawa on February 8, 2007 9:12:15 pm
Can somebody exlpain in easy language what is `Shrodinger`s Cat` problem?( like cat is both dead and alive in box, Something to do with quantum computing I guess)
#92 Posted by khurram on February 8, 2007 11:01:19 am
Re #90 khuram,
``Neither the procedures of scientific research are absolutely accurate and nor the theories of science are any absolute truths. Even scientific truths change over time. Established scientific theories should be questioned and if supporters of science remain answerless, then they should seriously review those theories, rather than feeling pain over the loss of their beloved theories.``
I don`t think any scientist (or their defenders on chowk) will disagree with this. Scientist welcome doubt & criticism (in fact, demand it!) . Scientific theories are always being revised in the face of critcism and additional evidence. The problem with YOUR criticsm is that it does not display a proper understanding of the concept being criticized.
``Neither the procedures of scientific research are absolutely accurate and nor the theories of science are any absolute truths. Even scientific truths change over time. Established scientific theories should be questioned and if supporters of science remain answerless, then they should seriously review those theories, rather than feeling pain over the loss of their beloved theories.``
I don`t think any scientist (or their defenders on chowk) will disagree with this. Scientist welcome doubt & criticism (in fact, demand it!) . Scientific theories are always being revised in the face of critcism and additional evidence. The problem with YOUR criticsm is that it does not display a proper understanding of the concept being criticized.
#91 Posted by GT on February 8, 2007 9:28:28 am
Re: # 90 by khuram:
Khuram,
Nice to see you here. I am actually quite intrigued by this string theory but am too lazy to pick up a book on it. My question is very simple. Does it violate the definitions of union, intersection and complement (as in basic set theory)? I have seen work in logic where a lattice is defined on the universal set and complementarity is violated in the structure where the lattice is defined. Is something similar going on in string theory?
Khuram,
Nice to see you here. I am actually quite intrigued by this string theory but am too lazy to pick up a book on it. My question is very simple. Does it violate the definitions of union, intersection and complement (as in basic set theory)? I have seen work in logic where a lattice is defined on the universal set and complementarity is violated in the structure where the lattice is defined. Is something similar going on in string theory?
#90 Posted by khuram on February 7, 2007 9:58:06 pm
Kaalchakara,,
Yes ``counterproductiveness`` is a worse thing. Criticism itself cannot be regarded as counterproductive, as it makes us able to look at issues from some new angles as well. And counterproductivess also should be criticized. But `pain` is also a form of evil. As a matter of fact, religious people cannot ignore the pain which results from any criticism on them. And as a matter of fact, other scientific dogmatic persons should not feel pain as they should know that whole edific of their contemporary ``systemetic`` knowledge is having the basis of criticism.
Neither the procedures of scientific research are absolutely accurate and nor the theories of science are any absolute truths. Even scientific truths change over time. Established scientific theories should be questioned and if supporters of science remain answerless, then they should seriously review those theories, rather than feeling pain over the loss of their beloved theories.
Whoever can talk with reasonable logic, should have full right of criticism.
Regards!
Yes ``counterproductiveness`` is a worse thing. Criticism itself cannot be regarded as counterproductive, as it makes us able to look at issues from some new angles as well. And counterproductivess also should be criticized. But `pain` is also a form of evil. As a matter of fact, religious people cannot ignore the pain which results from any criticism on them. And as a matter of fact, other scientific dogmatic persons should not feel pain as they should know that whole edific of their contemporary ``systemetic`` knowledge is having the basis of criticism.
Neither the procedures of scientific research are absolutely accurate and nor the theories of science are any absolute truths. Even scientific truths change over time. Established scientific theories should be questioned and if supporters of science remain answerless, then they should seriously review those theories, rather than feeling pain over the loss of their beloved theories.
Whoever can talk with reasonable logic, should have full right of criticism.
Regards!
#89 Posted by KaalChakra on February 7, 2007 6:45:27 pm
khuram
Not causing ``pain`` to others` beliefs if you profoundly disagree with those beliefs is counterproductive, don`t you think, bhai sahib?
At best, and at the very least, in criticising other people`s beliefs, one mustn`t deliberately distort those beliefs with an eye to deceiving trusting audiences. On that most important, in fact, only valid moral score, science and religion haven`t proven to be equally Godly.
One of the two has fared much worse.
Not causing ``pain`` to others` beliefs if you profoundly disagree with those beliefs is counterproductive, don`t you think, bhai sahib?
At best, and at the very least, in criticising other people`s beliefs, one mustn`t deliberately distort those beliefs with an eye to deceiving trusting audiences. On that most important, in fact, only valid moral score, science and religion haven`t proven to be equally Godly.
One of the two has fared much worse.
#88 Posted by khuram on February 7, 2007 12:51:11 pm
Re: # 86
Dear Okhla Sahib,,
Just off the topic: I have been just watching chowk for quite long time. I have started interacting just recently. I do not know your views in particular ... but the general environment of chowk is that chowkies freely criticise religion and do not care about the pain which religious people could feel. But chowkies themselves feel pain whenever their ``science`` is criticized. Chowkies are having dogmatic belongingness with their science. Gill sahib who uses his id of ``freethinker``, also cannot think against his beloved science. Actually I also consider myself ``freethinker`` ... in the sense that my ``freethinking`` can go beyond my area of proficiency. If science is ``systemetic`` ... then there should be, at least, some ``taste`` of ``freethinking`` also in it...!!!
And please consider that the issue of probability was discussed in a different context ... not in the context of n-dimensions. Actually I believe in only those things which I can understand. And since science is ``systemetic`` ... so in ``science`` some people understand some truths on behalf of all those who may or may not understand those truths. So if I become a part of ``systemetic science``, then I shall not be able to say that I believe in only those things which I can understand. Then I shall say, I believe in those things which have been published in peer reviewd journals...!!!
My area of proficiency is Philosophy. Unfortunately, a philosopher cannot become as much systemetic as a scientist can be. Since science is ``systemetic`` so a scientist really is not in need to try to understand other areas of study. In a ``systemetic`` environment, he would just accept what the ``experts`` of other areas shall tell him.
And since a philosopher cannot be systemetic in this sense, as he has to rely on his own understanding on every issue, so he may not accept points of views of experts of other area, in case those points of views remain un-understandable to that philosopher. A philosopher may have many many wrong understandings as a result. But after all, he can say: ``I believe in only those things which I can understand.``
Thanks for your valuable advices however.
Regards!
Dear Okhla Sahib,,
Just off the topic: I have been just watching chowk for quite long time. I have started interacting just recently. I do not know your views in particular ... but the general environment of chowk is that chowkies freely criticise religion and do not care about the pain which religious people could feel. But chowkies themselves feel pain whenever their ``science`` is criticized. Chowkies are having dogmatic belongingness with their science. Gill sahib who uses his id of ``freethinker``, also cannot think against his beloved science. Actually I also consider myself ``freethinker`` ... in the sense that my ``freethinking`` can go beyond my area of proficiency. If science is ``systemetic`` ... then there should be, at least, some ``taste`` of ``freethinking`` also in it...!!!
And please consider that the issue of probability was discussed in a different context ... not in the context of n-dimensions. Actually I believe in only those things which I can understand. And since science is ``systemetic`` ... so in ``science`` some people understand some truths on behalf of all those who may or may not understand those truths. So if I become a part of ``systemetic science``, then I shall not be able to say that I believe in only those things which I can understand. Then I shall say, I believe in those things which have been published in peer reviewd journals...!!!
My area of proficiency is Philosophy. Unfortunately, a philosopher cannot become as much systemetic as a scientist can be. Since science is ``systemetic`` so a scientist really is not in need to try to understand other areas of study. In a ``systemetic`` environment, he would just accept what the ``experts`` of other areas shall tell him.
And since a philosopher cannot be systemetic in this sense, as he has to rely on his own understanding on every issue, so he may not accept points of views of experts of other area, in case those points of views remain un-understandable to that philosopher. A philosopher may have many many wrong understandings as a result. But after all, he can say: ``I believe in only those things which I can understand.``
Thanks for your valuable advices however.
Regards!
#87 Posted by khuram on February 7, 2007 12:10:43 pm
Re: # 84
Khurram,,
Thanks for your comments. If you had read that article then you should not have missed the core point that logical relationship of top number is with just how i.e. at which angle and with how much force that dice was thrown. Top number has no logical relation with the number of times the dice was thrown. Secondly you have not proved any invalidity in my understanding. According to your logic, since my understanding is invalid, so my views on probability are also invalid.
I know my individual articles may not make any sense. They are based on my own thinking. Until and unless I do not convert all my thinking into a single readable place, it may not make any sense to second person. The only way to make 100% sense of my articles is that read them and then interact with me. I have split up my ideas in different small articles. Only and only I know which idea of one article is linked to which and which idea of which other article and in which sense. You shall realize these PRACTICAL difficulties when you yourself undertake to convert all of your mind on some readable material.
Secondly I had told you that I have not analyzed this particular issue in details ... as it was not so important for me. In my previous interact, I had specifically mentioned that those scientific reasearches that use this particular type of probability are like calculated astrologies. It was a real logical fallacy on my part that on the basis of a particular type of probability, I used such words that give the sense as if I am declaring all the probability theory as wrong. I was fully aware of this point on my part even before your comments and to make correction in that point was in my list of tasks. It is really not an easy task to keep all those articles in perfect logical order. I know there can be many logical flaws in many of my articles. All my articles are having similar patterns because those are original works of a single person. I am not any dogmatic person, for whom his ideas may be the final words. I am a flexible person and can change my views also. When I change my views, then I need to update my articles as well. This process takes time. My old views were present in my article. I already had realized some flaw in them, thats why I used following words in my previous interact.
Whichever scientific theory employs ``probability`` analysis, at least of that type which is analyzed in this article ... is not more than just a ``calculated`` Astrology.
Anyway, I still insist that at least the example I analyzed, was really a faulty type of probability and that type of probability is also part of established science.
And I do not accept your this point that I declared it invalid just because I did not get exact 17 readings. I was sure about it even before performing that experiment. I call it invalid because top value has really no logical relationship with number of times the die is thrown. It has logical relation only with just how the dice is thrown. If dice is thrown in exact uniform pattern for each throw, only one number shall be on top for everytime.
And thanks for the other advice. I always remain in search of proper guidance and I do not refuse to guidance. Your guidance is also welcome!
Regards!
Khurram,,
Thanks for your comments. If you had read that article then you should not have missed the core point that logical relationship of top number is with just how i.e. at which angle and with how much force that dice was thrown. Top number has no logical relation with the number of times the dice was thrown. Secondly you have not proved any invalidity in my understanding. According to your logic, since my understanding is invalid, so my views on probability are also invalid.
I know my individual articles may not make any sense. They are based on my own thinking. Until and unless I do not convert all my thinking into a single readable place, it may not make any sense to second person. The only way to make 100% sense of my articles is that read them and then interact with me. I have split up my ideas in different small articles. Only and only I know which idea of one article is linked to which and which idea of which other article and in which sense. You shall realize these PRACTICAL difficulties when you yourself undertake to convert all of your mind on some readable material.
Secondly I had told you that I have not analyzed this particular issue in details ... as it was not so important for me. In my previous interact, I had specifically mentioned that those scientific reasearches that use this particular type of probability are like calculated astrologies. It was a real logical fallacy on my part that on the basis of a particular type of probability, I used such words that give the sense as if I am declaring all the probability theory as wrong. I was fully aware of this point on my part even before your comments and to make correction in that point was in my list of tasks. It is really not an easy task to keep all those articles in perfect logical order. I know there can be many logical flaws in many of my articles. All my articles are having similar patterns because those are original works of a single person. I am not any dogmatic person, for whom his ideas may be the final words. I am a flexible person and can change my views also. When I change my views, then I need to update my articles as well. This process takes time. My old views were present in my article. I already had realized some flaw in them, thats why I used following words in my previous interact.
Whichever scientific theory employs ``probability`` analysis, at least of that type which is analyzed in this article ... is not more than just a ``calculated`` Astrology.
Anyway, I still insist that at least the example I analyzed, was really a faulty type of probability and that type of probability is also part of established science.
And I do not accept your this point that I declared it invalid just because I did not get exact 17 readings. I was sure about it even before performing that experiment. I call it invalid because top value has really no logical relationship with number of times the die is thrown. It has logical relation only with just how the dice is thrown. If dice is thrown in exact uniform pattern for each throw, only one number shall be on top for everytime.
And thanks for the other advice. I always remain in search of proper guidance and I do not refuse to guidance. Your guidance is also welcome!
Regards!
#86 Posted by okhla99 on February 7, 2007 10:06:22 am
Dear Khuram,
I have seen your website. You are an intelligent person trying to be a master of everything.
Mathematics and the Sciences are definitely NOT your forte. Please refrain from commenting on these. You only end up making a pathetic ridiculous show. Probability is related to stochastic variables & processes. n-dimensional spaces can be visualised in virtually all coordinate systems.
Science means ``systematic knowledge``. Please make a systematic study of these subjects. Acquire some proficiency. Then comment. Otherwise stick to your areas of proficiency.
On this thread, there is no space for half baked arguments.
#85 Posted by delhiwala on February 7, 2007 8:49:41 am
Re: # 84
10-4 Khurram buddy.
You said what I have been trying to say for many years now.
10-4 Khurram buddy.
You said what I have been trying to say for many years now.
#84 Posted by khurram on February 7, 2007 8:27:19 am
Khuram,
I looked at some articles on your website, including the section on probability as you suggested. There seems to be a common pattern to your writings. You display a faulty understanding of a concept and then declare the concept invalid. For example, you declare the theory of probability invalid because you actually threw a dice 102 times and didn`t get exactly 17 occurences of `3` . Well, it is your understanding that is invalid and not the theory of probability. Same applies to several other articles of yours.
It is apparent from the length of your articles that you have a lot of passion and energy for learning. It is my sincere advice that you seek guidance from qualified scholars on matters that interest you.
I looked at some articles on your website, including the section on probability as you suggested. There seems to be a common pattern to your writings. You display a faulty understanding of a concept and then declare the concept invalid. For example, you declare the theory of probability invalid because you actually threw a dice 102 times and didn`t get exactly 17 occurences of `3` . Well, it is your understanding that is invalid and not the theory of probability. Same applies to several other articles of yours.
It is apparent from the length of your articles that you have a lot of passion and energy for learning. It is my sincere advice that you seek guidance from qualified scholars on matters that interest you.
#83 Posted by delhiwala on February 7, 2007 6:33:39 am
I am impressed, you people speak about String Theory as if you wrote it.
But please remember coming to USA on F1 VISas and then going to some American College in Ann Arbor will not make you Einstein(a Jew that you hate anyways).
Nobody has published any paper on Sting Theory that has any mathematical basis.
Best explanation of this theory came from NOVA(PBS).
but isn`t it UnIslamic to beleive in String Theory....
But please remember coming to USA on F1 VISas and then going to some American College in Ann Arbor will not make you Einstein(a Jew that you hate anyways).
Nobody has published any paper on Sting Theory that has any mathematical basis.
Best explanation of this theory came from NOVA(PBS).
but isn`t it UnIslamic to beleive in String Theory....
#82 Posted by khuram on February 7, 2007 4:28:26 am
Khurram,,
Your following point was left to be discussed in my previous reply:
Can you point to a theory that makes false predictions?
Here I want to discuss something about the so called theory of ``probability``... This is one of the main theories of accepted or established sciences whose only purpose is not more than to just make predictions.
Please read my this article: ``Objective and Subjective Tendencies``
Read only the ``probability`` portion of this article. I have taken some `probability` questions out of Math book and have ``practically`` (i.e. empirically) tested them.
Obviously, as I already knew before performing those experiments, all the ``empirical`` results were different from ``actual calculated`` answers.
After presenting the ``empirical failure`` of ``Probability Theory`` ... then I have shown that ``Probability Theory`` is actually logically invalid. That`s why any empirical test just cannot tally with the calculated answer.
This is true that probability theory is not the product of modern science ... But probability analysis is still the part of existing ``scientific`` research work.
Whichever scientific theory employs ``probability`` analysis, at least of that type which is analyzed in this article ... is not more than just a ``calculated`` Astrology.
The same article also discusses some other forms of scientific predictions ... that may not actually happen as predicted. Secondly it`s not very detailed analysis, as the issue was not very important.
@ nasah
Zarra Nawwazi hai janab.... aap ki..
Thanks & Regards
Your following point was left to be discussed in my previous reply:
Can you point to a theory that makes false predictions?
Here I want to discuss something about the so called theory of ``probability``... This is one of the main theories of accepted or established sciences whose only purpose is not more than to just make predictions.
Please read my this article: ``Objective and Subjective Tendencies``
Read only the ``probability`` portion of this article. I have taken some `probability` questions out of Math book and have ``practically`` (i.e. empirically) tested them.
Obviously, as I already knew before performing those experiments, all the ``empirical`` results were different from ``actual calculated`` answers.
After presenting the ``empirical failure`` of ``Probability Theory`` ... then I have shown that ``Probability Theory`` is actually logically invalid. That`s why any empirical test just cannot tally with the calculated answer.
This is true that probability theory is not the product of modern science ... But probability analysis is still the part of existing ``scientific`` research work.
Whichever scientific theory employs ``probability`` analysis, at least of that type which is analyzed in this article ... is not more than just a ``calculated`` Astrology.
The same article also discusses some other forms of scientific predictions ... that may not actually happen as predicted. Secondly it`s not very detailed analysis, as the issue was not very important.
@ nasah
Zarra Nawwazi hai janab.... aap ki..
Thanks & Regards
#81 Posted by nasah on February 6, 2007 6:30:17 pm
`` I am no scientist `` (khuram)
nhoooo -- you must be kiddin!
nhoooo -- you must be kiddin!
#80 Posted by khuram on February 6, 2007 12:58:10 pm
Re: # 79
Dear Khurram,
As I am no scientist ... so making of predictions, for me, is just a trivial part of knowledge. Perhaps Astrologists and Palmists can better perform the task of making predictions. General Relativity Theory had rightly pointed out certain real phenomenon based on logical similarity between accelerated system and field of gravitation. Some points were experimentally confirmed later on. But some findings were not properly interpreted. Concept of Black Hole etc. can be very easily concluded out of General Relativity. If an ordinary field of Gravitation can bent the ray of light ... then it is not difficult to conclude that very anormously strong field of Graviation could ``absorb`` light as well. To determine the ``properties`` of such an anormously strong field of gravitation was also not difficult. Obviously only a very dense object could have so much strong field of Gravitation. Ok I also make a new prediction ... An extra high accelerated system also can absorb light. So when science shall be able to make such extra high accelerated systems, then could confirm this prediction as well.
But see that these predictions are coming out of what could be logically followed out of a logically accurate point. To find the similarity between accelerated system and field of gravitation was a logically accurate ``observation`` or ``conclusion``. Then all the following predictions also have logical relation with the original logical findings. Now see that science is taking full benefits of the application of logic. But the same science is formally un-aware about the importance of logic. It still disregards rational inquiry and theory of logic. It talks about some vogue and unclear concept of ``empirical knowledge``, which is practically not the true party of actual scientific progress. Knowledge doesn`t mean to just make right predictions. Knowledge is self-cognition. What we are,,, what our processes are,,, what our systems are etc. etc. Just like false premises can result in true conclusions, so wrong theories also can result in right predictions. Examples may be many right predictions of Astrologists and Palmists.
Regards!
Dear Khurram,
As I am no scientist ... so making of predictions, for me, is just a trivial part of knowledge. Perhaps Astrologists and Palmists can better perform the task of making predictions. General Relativity Theory had rightly pointed out certain real phenomenon based on logical similarity between accelerated system and field of gravitation. Some points were experimentally confirmed later on. But some findings were not properly interpreted. Concept of Black Hole etc. can be very easily concluded out of General Relativity. If an ordinary field of Gravitation can bent the ray of light ... then it is not difficult to conclude that very anormously strong field of Graviation could ``absorb`` light as well. To determine the ``properties`` of such an anormously strong field of gravitation was also not difficult. Obviously only a very dense object could have so much strong field of Gravitation. Ok I also make a new prediction ... An extra high accelerated system also can absorb light. So when science shall be able to make such extra high accelerated systems, then could confirm this prediction as well.
But see that these predictions are coming out of what could be logically followed out of a logically accurate point. To find the similarity between accelerated system and field of gravitation was a logically accurate ``observation`` or ``conclusion``. Then all the following predictions also have logical relation with the original logical findings. Now see that science is taking full benefits of the application of logic. But the same science is formally un-aware about the importance of logic. It still disregards rational inquiry and theory of logic. It talks about some vogue and unclear concept of ``empirical knowledge``, which is practically not the true party of actual scientific progress. Knowledge doesn`t mean to just make right predictions. Knowledge is self-cognition. What we are,,, what our processes are,,, what our systems are etc. etc. Just like false premises can result in true conclusions, so wrong theories also can result in right predictions. Examples may be many right predictions of Astrologists and Palmists.
Regards!
#79 Posted by khurram on February 6, 2007 9:56:26 am
Dear khuram,
You can argue all you want about the properties of space, matter & time. But, can you make better predictions than General Relativity?
If you can`t, then what is the significance of your disagreements?
You claim that science is full of illogical theories. Can you point to a theory that makes false predictions? Do you have an alternative that makes better predictions?
You can argue all you want about the properties of space, matter & time. But, can you make better predictions than General Relativity?
If you can`t, then what is the significance of your disagreements?
You claim that science is full of illogical theories. Can you point to a theory that makes false predictions? Do you have an alternative that makes better predictions?
#78 Posted by khuram on February 6, 2007 4:59:20 am
Dear AmirIqbal,
The usage of multi-dimensional spaces in our ``daily lives`` is quite understandable to me. I am also telling just this thing that more than 3 dimensions must have to be in just usual sense of daily usage.
You should have proved that I was confused in my criticism on the idea of ``physical 4 or more dimensional space``:
Like all my opponent scientists, my knowledge of sting theory is also just marginal. It is good to know however that this theory is successfully explaining all those non-empirical things like ``entropy/area relationship for a blackhole etc. etc.
My main issue of concern is not that such and such things are not right in such and such theory.
Target of my criticism is still the so-called ``empirical method`` of science. Since science is downgrading and ignoring true rational part of science,,, so many many absurd ideas have to be the part of established science. I have no sympathy with this science at all so my efforts have no aim of making any improvments in the procedures of science.
Here I just want to sum up as well as add a thing to what I explained in my intract numbers 38 and 50.
- There is NO clash between Empirical Knowledge and Rational Knowledge.
- Rational Knowledge is NOT opposed to Empirical Knowledge
- Rational Knowledge and Empirical Knowledge are NOT having separate sources of origin.
- These are actually conceptual errors as if Empirical Knowledge and Rational Knowlege are having separate sources of origin, or that they are having some clash with one another, or that they are opposed to one another.
- In previous interacts, I had shown that Rational Knowledge is actually a re-arrangement of Empirical Knowledge. Here I want to add that better way to think of this phenomenon is that Rational Knowledge is actually a Proper Organization of Empirical Knowledge.
- Being a ``proper organization`` of Empirical Knowledge, Rational Knowledge can be considered as ``Finished Product`` and Empirical Knowledge can be considered as ``Raw Material``.
- And as I have no sympathy with ``science``, so I am not going to ask ``scientists`` to please change your procedure.
- As per my ``hostility`` for ``science`` ... I want to tell ``scientists`` that their ``empirical knowledge``, being just a ``raw-material``, is INFERIOR to ``rational knowledge``, which is the ``finished product``.
- Superior Knowledge is Rational Knowledge ... because it is ``Proper Organization`` of ``Raw Empirical Knowledge``.
Thanks and bye for now!
The usage of multi-dimensional spaces in our ``daily lives`` is quite understandable to me. I am also telling just this thing that more than 3 dimensions must have to be in just usual sense of daily usage.
You should have proved that I was confused in my criticism on the idea of ``physical 4 or more dimensional space``:
Like all my opponent scientists, my knowledge of sting theory is also just marginal. It is good to know however that this theory is successfully explaining all those non-empirical things like ``entropy/area relationship for a blackhole etc. etc.
My main issue of concern is not that such and such things are not right in such and such theory.
Target of my criticism is still the so-called ``empirical method`` of science. Since science is downgrading and ignoring true rational part of science,,, so many many absurd ideas have to be the part of established science. I have no sympathy with this science at all so my efforts have no aim of making any improvments in the procedures of science.
Here I just want to sum up as well as add a thing to what I explained in my intract numbers 38 and 50.
- There is NO clash between Empirical Knowledge and Rational Knowledge.
- Rational Knowledge is NOT opposed to Empirical Knowledge
- Rational Knowledge and Empirical Knowledge are NOT having separate sources of origin.
- These are actually conceptual errors as if Empirical Knowledge and Rational Knowlege are having separate sources of origin, or that they are having some clash with one another, or that they are opposed to one another.
- In previous interacts, I had shown that Rational Knowledge is actually a re-arrangement of Empirical Knowledge. Here I want to add that better way to think of this phenomenon is that Rational Knowledge is actually a Proper Organization of Empirical Knowledge.
- Being a ``proper organization`` of Empirical Knowledge, Rational Knowledge can be considered as ``Finished Product`` and Empirical Knowledge can be considered as ``Raw Material``.
- And as I have no sympathy with ``science``, so I am not going to ask ``scientists`` to please change your procedure.
- As per my ``hostility`` for ``science`` ... I want to tell ``scientists`` that their ``empirical knowledge``, being just a ``raw-material``, is INFERIOR to ``rational knowledge``, which is the ``finished product``.
- Superior Knowledge is Rational Knowledge ... because it is ``Proper Organization`` of ``Raw Empirical Knowledge``.
Thanks and bye for now!
#77 Posted by ameriqbal on February 5, 2007 9:52:47 pm
Re # 73.
Khuram you are very confused about the state of modern physics. It is not as ill conceived as you think.
Let me first just mention that all of us encounter and use the idea of multi-dimensional spaces in our daily lives. Whenever we are dealing with a few independent variables taking value in a certain set we are dealing with multi-dimensional space. So this is not such an exotic concept. For example keeping track of a truck requires 3 numbers: 2 numbers giving the position of the truck on the surface of the earth and one number giving the time when that truck was at that position. Keeping track of 2 trucks requires a 6 dimensional space.
As far as string theory is concerned it is a remarkably self-consistent and mathematically elegant framework. The basic ingredient in its definition is the 2 dimensional conformal field theory. Most of the interesting properties of strings follow from the fact that the string moving around sweeps out surface which is 2 dimensional and therefore the ideas from complex geometry can be used to deal with it. Interesting things happen in 2 dimensions and which do not happen in higher ones.
String theory has been successful in explaining the entropy/area relationship for a black hole, properties of supersymmetric gauge theories, non-trivial correspondence between seemingly diffrent geometries (mirror symmetry), the number of curves of various kind in geometries, knot invariants etc etc.
Khuram you are very confused about the state of modern physics. It is not as ill conceived as you think.
Let me first just mention that all of us encounter and use the idea of multi-dimensional spaces in our daily lives. Whenever we are dealing with a few independent variables taking value in a certain set we are dealing with multi-dimensional space. So this is not such an exotic concept. For example keeping track of a truck requires 3 numbers: 2 numbers giving the position of the truck on the surface of the earth and one number giving the time when that truck was at that position. Keeping track of 2 trucks requires a 6 dimensional space.
As far as string theory is concerned it is a remarkably self-consistent and mathematically elegant framework. The basic ingredient in its definition is the 2 dimensional conformal field theory. Most of the interesting properties of strings follow from the fact that the string moving around sweeps out surface which is 2 dimensional and therefore the ideas from complex geometry can be used to deal with it. Interesting things happen in 2 dimensions and which do not happen in higher ones.
String theory has been successful in explaining the entropy/area relationship for a black hole, properties of supersymmetric gauge theories, non-trivial correspondence between seemingly diffrent geometries (mirror symmetry), the number of curves of various kind in geometries, knot invariants etc etc.
#76 Posted by khuram on February 5, 2007 9:47:25 pm
Re: # 74
If you just bother to read my interact # 38 and onward ... You shall realize that these are NOT medieval arguments.
The physics you are suggesting is unknown to scientists as well ... They are just running after illusions.
Secondly your so much big argument that ``if you have not seen Japan, it does not mean Japan does not exis``,,, is not the to the point reply to my points. Try to counter my points ... and call that Faynman for your help as well.
Regards!
If you just bother to read my interact # 38 and onward ... You shall realize that these are NOT medieval arguments.
The physics you are suggesting is unknown to scientists as well ... They are just running after illusions.
Secondly your so much big argument that ``if you have not seen Japan, it does not mean Japan does not exis``,,, is not the to the point reply to my points. Try to counter my points ... and call that Faynman for your help as well.
Regards!
#75 Posted by khuram on February 5, 2007 9:34:28 pm
And as I have explained in interact # 67 that Time does not exist in empty space. Here I want to add something to it.
The concept of time is wholly dependent on the movement of physical objects. Time does not reside in ``space``. Time is there inside of physical objects. Because physical objects always remain in the state of motion. It is only and only physical objects and their mutual interactions that give us the ``idea`` of time.
What has been empirically verified is just that movement of same nature ``events`` slows down with increase in the strength of Gravitational field.
Gravitational field is Not the charactristic property of space itself. Gravitational field is the characteristic property of massive material objects in fact. Events occur only and only in material objects ... Duration between events also has to do only with material objects ... Slowing down of those events is also because of ``mutual interactions`` of those material objects.
Time, so, resides only in the ``behavior`` of ``physical objects``. Time does not slow down because of some property of space itself. Time slows down only due to ``mutual interactions`` of material objects. Let`s at poit `T` of empty space, speed of time is `a`. Now we bring a massive material object near the point `T`. Now speed of time at point `T` shall be slowed down because now this point would be within the range of a gravitational field. This slowing down of time has not happened due to any property of ``space`` whatsoever. It has happened just due to mutual interaction, or type of movement (in case of slowing down of time in high speed objects) of material objects.
Time has nothing to do with Space...!!!
Regards!
The concept of time is wholly dependent on the movement of physical objects. Time does not reside in ``space``. Time is there inside of physical objects. Because physical objects always remain in the state of motion. It is only and only physical objects and their mutual interactions that give us the ``idea`` of time.
What has been empirically verified is just that movement of same nature ``events`` slows down with increase in the strength of Gravitational field.
Gravitational field is Not the charactristic property of space itself. Gravitational field is the characteristic property of massive material objects in fact. Events occur only and only in material objects ... Duration between events also has to do only with material objects ... Slowing down of those events is also because of ``mutual interactions`` of those material objects.
Time, so, resides only in the ``behavior`` of ``physical objects``. Time does not slow down because of some property of space itself. Time slows down only due to ``mutual interactions`` of material objects. Let`s at poit `T` of empty space, speed of time is `a`. Now we bring a massive material object near the point `T`. Now speed of time at point `T` shall be slowed down because now this point would be within the range of a gravitational field. This slowing down of time has not happened due to any property of ``space`` whatsoever. It has happened just due to mutual interaction, or type of movement (in case of slowing down of time in high speed objects) of material objects.
Time has nothing to do with Space...!!!
Regards!
#74 Posted by okhla99 on February 5, 2007 9:31:41 pm
Re: # 73
These are medieval arguments, part logic, part common sense, part half truths. Would appear to be forceful and convincing to a gathering of village elders (Chowk ???). In a scientific grouping they appear ridiculous and laughably pathetic.
Mian, progress beyond freshman physics.
Read some progressive scientific material. Start with n-dimensional vectors. Or start with Feynman.
Just because you have not seen Japan does not mean that Japan does not exist.
#73 Posted by khuram on February 5, 2007 8:59:30 pm
Re: # 70
Yaar ... you do not need to be so much worry. I had given the link for the details ... but you did not study ... just started worrying. Ok I copy the relevant portion out of that link below:
``Invalid ideas are only those;
i. That cannot be imagined in the form of mind image and so cannot be translated into even man made products. Here, a point should be noted that there are certain pure abstract ideas, which cannot be imagined in the form of mind image, but still we cannot consider this type of un-imaginable ideas as invalid. For example we cannot consider all the metaphysical ideas as invalid just because we cannot imagine those metaphysical entities in the form of mind image. This provision of the invalidity of ideas is applicable only to the case of those ideas, which are in fact; compound ideas of such component ideas, which are ordinary ‘visible’ material objects. In this case, in fact, the component ideas are not only visible material objects but these component ideas also can be successfully imagined in the form of mind images. So the component ideas are valid ideas. It is only the particular arrangement of these valid ideas, in the form a ‘compound idea’ which we should consider invalid idea due to our inability to imagine this ‘compound idea’ in the form of mind image. The class of these un-imaginable things, which represent impossible figures or other self-contradictory ideas, cannot have their real existence even in the un-identified world. Their possible existence is only in the form of invalid and un-imaginable ideas inside the mind.
For the ready reference, I am again giving the link: Compound Ideas and Imaginations and How they Differ From Invalid Ideas``
The above quoted paragraph is one of the last paras of this somewhat lengthy article.
Coming to the point ... the ``objects`` of ``Quantum Physics`` are basically abstract objects. We just have taken notice of certain laboratory readings and then have theorized the ``existence`` of such things as ``photon``.
It is just like that we take notice of some type of behavior of a young girl ... and then theorize that ... is k ander kisi Jin ne halool kia hua hai...
Here, Jin is also an abstract object ... (This point for Inquirer also)
But here ``idea`` of Jin is wrong because it can be experimentally proved to be wrong in such way that we can find some other realistic reason for such behaviour of girl.
The ``idea`` of photon is TRUE because we still have not found more realistic ``reason`` for those noticed laboratory experimental readings.
And ... Space is nothing ... but the outer layers of physical objects ... Space ``starts`` where boundaries of ``physical objects`` end. We say that ``space`` is ``three-dimensional`` NOT because space itself has three dimensions. We say that space is ``three-dimensional`` because outer-layers of all the physical objects suggest the geometry of three dimensions. To say that space has three dimensions is equivalent to say that physical objects also have three dimensions. And the dimensions of physical objects are empirically verifiable. Those who claim that space (and therefore objects) have four or more dimensions, should show us visible physical objects that should have more than 3 dimensions.
Regards!
Yaar ... you do not need to be so much worry. I had given the link for the details ... but you did not study ... just started worrying. Ok I copy the relevant portion out of that link below:
``Invalid ideas are only those;
i. That cannot be imagined in the form of mind image and so cannot be translated into even man made products. Here, a point should be noted that there are certain pure abstract ideas, which cannot be imagined in the form of mind image, but still we cannot consider this type of un-imaginable ideas as invalid. For example we cannot consider all the metaphysical ideas as invalid just because we cannot imagine those metaphysical entities in the form of mind image. This provision of the invalidity of ideas is applicable only to the case of those ideas, which are in fact; compound ideas of such component ideas, which are ordinary ‘visible’ material objects. In this case, in fact, the component ideas are not only visible material objects but these component ideas also can be successfully imagined in the form of mind images. So the component ideas are valid ideas. It is only the particular arrangement of these valid ideas, in the form a ‘compound idea’ which we should consider invalid idea due to our inability to imagine this ‘compound idea’ in the form of mind image. The class of these un-imaginable things, which represent impossible figures or other self-contradictory ideas, cannot have their real existence even in the un-identified world. Their possible existence is only in the form of invalid and un-imaginable ideas inside the mind.
For the ready reference, I am again giving the link: Compound Ideas and Imaginations and How they Differ From Invalid Ideas``
The above quoted paragraph is one of the last paras of this somewhat lengthy article.
Coming to the point ... the ``objects`` of ``Quantum Physics`` are basically abstract objects. We just have taken notice of certain laboratory readings and then have theorized the ``existence`` of such things as ``photon``.
It is just like that we take notice of some type of behavior of a young girl ... and then theorize that ... is k ander kisi Jin ne halool kia hua hai...
Here, Jin is also an abstract object ... (This point for Inquirer also)
But here ``idea`` of Jin is wrong because it can be experimentally proved to be wrong in such way that we can find some other realistic reason for such behaviour of girl.
The ``idea`` of photon is TRUE because we still have not found more realistic ``reason`` for those noticed laboratory experimental readings.
And ... Space is nothing ... but the outer layers of physical objects ... Space ``starts`` where boundaries of ``physical objects`` end. We say that ``space`` is ``three-dimensional`` NOT because space itself has three dimensions. We say that space is ``three-dimensional`` because outer-layers of all the physical objects suggest the geometry of three dimensions. To say that space has three dimensions is equivalent to say that physical objects also have three dimensions. And the dimensions of physical objects are empirically verifiable. Those who claim that space (and therefore objects) have four or more dimensions, should show us visible physical objects that should have more than 3 dimensions.
Regards!
#72 Posted by khuram on February 5, 2007 8:20:59 pm
Re: # 69
Khurram,
Physicists use this or that construct ... Inspired by the famous Einstienien theory, they have named that ``construct`` to be ``spacetime``. Whatever that construct is ... or whatever its ``name`` is, it can not have physical 4-dimensions``. The ultimate real purpose of ``spacetime`` construct MUST be to just take into consideration the impact of characteristic properties of different points of three dimensional space, that they can have different speeds of time.
And you are right that ``space`` still has three dimensions ... Actually it cannot have more than three dimensions.
Khurram,
Physicists use this or that construct ... Inspired by the famous Einstienien theory, they have named that ``construct`` to be ``spacetime``. Whatever that construct is ... or whatever its ``name`` is, it can not have physical 4-dimensions``. The ultimate real purpose of ``spacetime`` construct MUST be to just take into consideration the impact of characteristic properties of different points of three dimensional space, that they can have different speeds of time.
And you are right that ``space`` still has three dimensions ... Actually it cannot have more than three dimensions.
#71 Posted by delhiwala on February 5, 2007 6:57:52 pm
You all are committing blasphemy, String Theory is against your religion.
#70 Posted by nasah on February 5, 2007 5:09:20 pm
``we can visualize so many things .... except for absurd things. And idea of n-dimensional real space is totally absurd. Idea of n-universes is Not absurd. But the idea of more than 3 dimensions of space of our universe is totally absurd. And if absurd things cannot be visualized .......``(Khuram)
Alas -- I wish I could visualize the Quantum world to save it from `absurdity` -- but I can`t....:)
yet the goddam thing is real they say......not absurd....and it is real only because I can`t visualize it! -- can you believe it.....as soon I start to visualize `the thing` -- it becomes `absurd`.... that`s my fate I guess.
Alas -- I wish I could visualize the Quantum world to save it from `absurdity` -- but I can`t....:)
yet the goddam thing is real they say......not absurd....and it is real only because I can`t visualize it! -- can you believe it.....as soon I start to visualize `the thing` -- it becomes `absurd`.... that`s my fate I guess.
#69 Posted by khurram on February 5, 2007 12:46:36 pm
Re #67,
Physicists use a 4-dimensional construct called `spacetime` to explain behaviour of objects, expecially at very high speeds. The 4 dimensions of spacetime can be mapped to the familiar 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time.
It`s spacetime that`s the 4-dimensional mathematical object. Space still has 3 dimensions.
Physicists use a 4-dimensional construct called `spacetime` to explain behaviour of objects, expecially at very high speeds. The 4 dimensions of spacetime can be mapped to the familiar 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time.
It`s spacetime that`s the 4-dimensional mathematical object. Space still has 3 dimensions.
#68 Posted by delhiwala on February 5, 2007 11:15:45 am
Question to be asked is ``Is G-String theory of Khamkhwa a Phudd Story``?
#67 Posted by khuram on February 5, 2007 11:08:27 am
Idea that ``Time`` is the 4th dimension of ``space`` is Totally Absurd -- PROOF
If ``science`` is talking about ``space`` ... then it should talk about only and only space. It means, ``science`` should talk about complete empty space.
In a complete empty space ... where there is no ``matter`` at all ... Time cannot even exist in such complete empty space.
What is Time...???
Concept of time comes out of movement of material objects. Movement of material objects generates events.
What is Time...???
Time is actually the DURATION between those EVENTS
In a complete empty space >>> there shall be no material objects >>> With no material objects >>> there shall be no movement of material objects >>> with no movement >>> there shall be no EVENTS >>> with no events >>> there shall be no DURATION between EVENTS >>> Means No Time at all....!!!!!!!!
Time does not exist in empty space. So the idea that ``time`` is 4th dimension of space is Totally Absurd.
Regards!
If ``science`` is talking about ``space`` ... then it should talk about only and only space. It means, ``science`` should talk about complete empty space.
In a complete empty space ... where there is no ``matter`` at all ... Time cannot even exist in such complete empty space.
What is Time...???
Concept of time comes out of movement of material objects. Movement of material objects generates events.
What is Time...???
Time is actually the DURATION between those EVENTS
In a complete empty space >>> there shall be no material objects >>> With no material objects >>> there shall be no movement of material objects >>> with no movement >>> there shall be no EVENTS >>> with no events >>> there shall be no DURATION between EVENTS >>> Means No Time at all....!!!!!!!!
Time does not exist in empty space. So the idea that ``time`` is 4th dimension of space is Totally Absurd.
Regards!
#66 Posted by khuram on February 5, 2007 10:18:12 am
Re: # 65
Ok... if n-dimensions can be ``visualised`` then where has gone the ``empirical approach`` of science....???
You are talking about n-dimensions,,, I cannot visualize it ... but however, I can visusalize even n-universes ... each having separate sets of universal laws ... I can develop complex methematics for each universe as well.
My brother,,, we can visualize so many things .... except for absurd things. And idea of n-dimensional real space is totally absurd. Idea of n-universes is Not absurd. But the idea of more than 3 dimensions of space of our universe is totally absurd. And if absurd things cannot be visualized ... then no one can visualize. False claims that some people can visualize are possible.
For understanding what can be visualized or imagined and what cannot be ... Plz read my this article: ``Compound Ideas & Imaginations and How they Differ with Invalid Ideas``.
Secondly I have explained in my previous interact that the only empirical evidence is that speed of time does change with variations in the strength of field of gravitation. Out of this ``empirical evidence`` the maximum that can be logically concluded is that speed of time can be considered to be the characteristic property of different points in three dimensional space. And thats all.......!!!!!!
Regards!
Ok... if n-dimensions can be ``visualised`` then where has gone the ``empirical approach`` of science....???
You are talking about n-dimensions,,, I cannot visualize it ... but however, I can visusalize even n-universes ... each having separate sets of universal laws ... I can develop complex methematics for each universe as well.
My brother,,, we can visualize so many things .... except for absurd things. And idea of n-dimensional real space is totally absurd. Idea of n-universes is Not absurd. But the idea of more than 3 dimensions of space of our universe is totally absurd. And if absurd things cannot be visualized ... then no one can visualize. False claims that some people can visualize are possible.
For understanding what can be visualized or imagined and what cannot be ... Plz read my this article: ``Compound Ideas & Imaginations and How they Differ with Invalid Ideas``.
Secondly I have explained in my previous interact that the only empirical evidence is that speed of time does change with variations in the strength of field of gravitation. Out of this ``empirical evidence`` the maximum that can be logically concluded is that speed of time can be considered to be the characteristic property of different points in three dimensional space. And thats all.......!!!!!!
Regards!
#65 Posted by okhla99 on February 5, 2007 5:30:35 am
Khuram,
n-dimensional space can be visualised and lots of theorems & applications have been figured out based on these. Just because some individuals cannot comprehend more than three dimensions, does not mean that the system is absurd.
For an easy introduction read some Feynman. It is lucid and interesting even for non scientists.
And yes, Eno works...
#64 Posted by khuram on February 4, 2007 10:04:27 pm
About 4-dimensional space:
As I am no follower of scientist`s procedures ... so I shall mention my own understanding of the so-called 4-dimensional space:
General Relativity Theory provides that Time can move faster or slower at different locations of Universe. Speed of Time, according to this theory (i.e. experimentally proven) is normal (means fastest) in complete empy space where there is no effect of any force of gravitation at all.
But at those spots of universe which are in the range of considerable force of gravitation, time slows down at those locations.
Out of this primary information, what can be logically deduced is just that Speed of time is the characteristic property of any particular point of three dimensional space.
But since this speed of time can very for high speed objects as well ... so speed of time can be considered to be a characteristic property of speed of objects as well.
4-dimensions is a whole absurd idea. Even scientists cannot comprehend this idea...!!!
And I also do not believe that speed of light is the upper boundary limit of possible speed of any object. There is no logical proof for it in Einstienien system.
@ Inquirer
Thanks for Eno suggestion. I have seen it quite late because I had to brought medicine after posting my last reply last night. Your suggestion can be helpful for future, however.
Regards!
As I am no follower of scientist`s procedures ... so I shall mention my own understanding of the so-called 4-dimensional space:
General Relativity Theory provides that Time can move faster or slower at different locations of Universe. Speed of Time, according to this theory (i.e. experimentally proven) is normal (means fastest) in complete empy space where there is no effect of any force of gravitation at all.
But at those spots of universe which are in the range of considerable force of gravitation, time slows down at those locations.
Out of this primary information, what can be logically deduced is just that Speed of time is the characteristic property of any particular point of three dimensional space.
But since this speed of time can very for high speed objects as well ... so speed of time can be considered to be a characteristic property of speed of objects as well.
4-dimensions is a whole absurd idea. Even scientists cannot comprehend this idea...!!!
And I also do not believe that speed of light is the upper boundary limit of possible speed of any object. There is no logical proof for it in Einstienien system.
@ Inquirer
Thanks for Eno suggestion. I have seen it quite late because I had to brought medicine after posting my last reply last night. Your suggestion can be helpful for future, however.
Regards!
#63 Posted by GT on February 4, 2007 8:48:19 pm
Re: # 62 by Inquirer:
Sorry,
``..if w is the true state of nature ....``
Sorry,
``..if w is the true state of nature ....``
#62 Posted by GT on February 4, 2007 8:47:14 pm
Re: # 61 by Inquirer:
Thanks for the attempt .... but as you say things are not clear (at least to me). The way things are usually done is as follows:
If w is a state of nature and an event E is supposed to have occured then it is usually assumed that w belongs to E. Or we are able to say, for any event X either w is true in X or false. We may allow more than a binary mapping and allow for `may or may not be true` in X. But that is how far I can see things nothing more .... unless you let the set of all states of nature undefined. If so I would like to know how things are done.
By the way we are aware of two dimensional objects also: ``your shadow``.
Regards.
Thanks for the attempt .... but as you say things are not clear (at least to me). The way things are usually done is as follows:
If w is a state of nature and an event E is supposed to have occured then it is usually assumed that w belongs to E. Or we are able to say, for any event X either w is true in X or false. We may allow more than a binary mapping and allow for `may or may not be true` in X. But that is how far I can see things nothing more .... unless you let the set of all states of nature undefined. If so I would like to know how things are done.
By the way we are aware of two dimensional objects also: ``your shadow``.
Regards.
#61 Posted by Inquirer on February 4, 2007 7:42:34 pm
Re: # 59, freethinker and GT:
I am no string Theorist but will attempt to present what I know.
The funfamental idea of the thoeory is that all fundamental particles and their interaction particles ( in quantum- chromo, electro dynamics interactions are represented by particles, e.g., interactions between electromagnetic fields are accomplished by photons) are represented by interactions between linear strings of the size of 1E-53 cm. The strings have certain allowed modes of vibrations that give rise to particles like electrons etc. Simple electrostatics involves charged particle interaction but string theory involves multibody interactions which require much more complicated mathematics.
Numerous String Theories are possible based on the chosen laws for interactions of the strings. So far there is no unique or verifiable set of rules. There is no way one set of rules can be shown to be representative of the truth in Nature. Furthermore, there is no reason to prefer any set over any other.
By the way, freethinker, three space dimensions are the only ones which can be visualized by humans. In Einstein`s original special theory a very complicated mathematics was used to derive all the results that have become so popular these days. But Minkowski, Einstein`s thesis examinner, developed the four dimensional formulation and it has just caught on. The fourth dimension involves time but is converted to the displacemnt`s fourth component via weighting with the velocity of light. The higher dimensions are just a mathematical technique to represent a vector with more than four components.
I am fully aware that I have not provided the mathematical details but the they correspond to the physical situation that I have described very approximately (This is for Khuram!!).
I am no string Theorist but will attempt to present what I know.
The funfamental idea of the thoeory is that all fundamental particles and their interaction particles ( in quantum- chromo, electro dynamics interactions are represented by particles, e.g., interactions between electromagnetic fields are accomplished by photons) are represented by interactions between linear strings of the size of 1E-53 cm. The strings have certain allowed modes of vibrations that give rise to particles like electrons etc. Simple electrostatics involves charged particle interaction but string theory involves multibody interactions which require much more complicated mathematics.
Numerous String Theories are possible based on the chosen laws for interactions of the strings. So far there is no unique or verifiable set of rules. There is no way one set of rules can be shown to be representative of the truth in Nature. Furthermore, there is no reason to prefer any set over any other.
By the way, freethinker, three space dimensions are the only ones which can be visualized by humans. In Einstein`s original special theory a very complicated mathematics was used to derive all the results that have become so popular these days. But Minkowski, Einstein`s thesis examinner, developed the four dimensional formulation and it has just caught on. The fourth dimension involves time but is converted to the displacemnt`s fourth component via weighting with the velocity of light. The higher dimensions are just a mathematical technique to represent a vector with more than four components.
I am fully aware that I have not provided the mathematical details but the they correspond to the physical situation that I have described very approximately (This is for Khuram!!).
#60 Posted by GT on February 4, 2007 6:52:14 pm
Re: # 59
Yes, it would be nice if inquirer can help .... am actually looking forward.
Yes, it would be nice if inquirer can help .... am actually looking forward.
#59 Posted by freethinker on February 4, 2007 3:49:19 pm
GT: #58
Thanks for bringing us back to string theory.
Unfortunately, I am unable to answer your question. I am not a physicist nor a mathematician. Even many physicists find the string theory difficult to comprehend. I have difficulty visualizing the 4 dimensional space of relativity what to say of 10 or 11 dimensional space that the string theory requires. If you`re a physicist, you might know better than I do.
Let us ask Inquirer to help us out here; he has an M.Sc. in Physics and a Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering. But thanks for your interest nonetheless. You may read ``The Elegant Universe;`` the author has given some outlines of the kind of mathematics involved in the string theory.
Mohammad Gill
Thanks for bringing us back to string theory.
Unfortunately, I am unable to answer your question. I am not a physicist nor a mathematician. Even many physicists find the string theory difficult to comprehend. I have difficulty visualizing the 4 dimensional space of relativity what to say of 10 or 11 dimensional space that the string theory requires. If you`re a physicist, you might know better than I do.
Let us ask Inquirer to help us out here; he has an M.Sc. in Physics and a Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering. But thanks for your interest nonetheless. You may read ``The Elegant Universe;`` the author has given some outlines of the kind of mathematics involved in the string theory.
Mohammad Gill
#58 Posted by GT on February 4, 2007 2:48:50 pm
Gill:
People keep on saying that the math. of string theory is `different`. What is it that is different? For example in quantum mechanics one could work with non additive `probability` measures. But that is hardly `different`. So am quite curious about this string theory stuff.
Thanking you in anticipation.
#57 Posted by Inquirer on February 4, 2007 10:29:13 am
Re: # 50, khuram:
``Currently, scientists are disregarding “Rational Knowledge” and “Theory of Logic” as well. The true rational procedure, as identified above involves application of the theory of logic at two important stages. ``
****My, generally our, interest is only in the approach of the scientis, so the matter is closed.****
By the way khatti dakaar can be fixed by Eno`s fruit salt!!!!!
``Currently, scientists are disregarding “Rational Knowledge” and “Theory of Logic” as well. The true rational procedure, as identified above involves application of the theory of logic at two important stages. ``
****My, generally our, interest is only in the approach of the scientis, so the matter is closed.****
By the way khatti dakaar can be fixed by Eno`s fruit salt!!!!!
#56 Posted by freethinker on February 4, 2007 9:58:29 am
khuram:
We don`t seem to reach any agreement so I stop any further discussion.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
We don`t seem to reach any agreement so I stop any further discussion.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
#55 Posted by khuram on February 4, 2007 9:22:01 am
Re: # 54
Gill Sahib,
Theory of Logic is not the part of syllabus of science, at any level. So there is nothing wrong for a scientist if he commits some minor logical mistake.
Yes I said: ``in a valid argument, if premises are TRUE then conclusions cannot be false.``
But your point was not that.
Your point was that: ``Conclusion must be false if premises are false``.
Your words: ``Your statement that ``so conclusions can be true and premises can be false,`` is wrong because it contradicts your own first statement. ``
Yes above is my statement. But neither it is wrong, nor it contradicts with my own above statement.
In my previous reply, I mentioned the only one condition for the validity of argument.
That condition starts with True Premises.
My first statement is talking about True Premises.
My second statement is talking about False Premises.
So these two statements of mine are NOT contradictory with one another.
Your point of view starts with False Premises. So your point of view does not come up to that only one condition which starts with True Premises.
Secondly there is also need to explain that argument.
Your words:
``All Africans are black-skinned (correct)
MJ is an African
MJ is black-skinned (correct)``
Actually I had mentioned the example of such valid argument whose premises are false but conclusion is true.
This argument should be read in following way:
All Africans are black-skinned (wrong -- because we know some white skinned ppl also live in Africa)
MJ is an African (correct ... and really a black-skinned as well)
MJ is black-skinned (correct -- see that even though first premise was wrong... but conclusion of this argument is right.)
Now I take your second example:
All Africans are white (wrong)
MJ is an African
MJ is white (wrong)
MJ is not white but this conclusion is deduced correctly from the above set of statements. The conclusion is wrong because the premise is wrong.
My comments:
Yes if premises are wrong, then conclusion can be wrong.
But it is wrong to say that if premises are wrong then conclusion must be wrong.
See another example where premises are wrong and conclusion also wrong:
All bats are birds.(wrong)
Birds are all marine creatures.(wrong)
Therefore, bats are marine creatures.(wrong)
But it is not right to make it a general rule that conclusion must be wrong if premises are wrong ... for those reason which I have explained above.
And Gill Sahib,,, You have good fighting spirit!
Best wishes... Regards!
Khuram
Gill Sahib,
Theory of Logic is not the part of syllabus of science, at any level. So there is nothing wrong for a scientist if he commits some minor logical mistake.
Yes I said: ``in a valid argument, if premises are TRUE then conclusions cannot be false.``
But your point was not that.
Your point was that: ``Conclusion must be false if premises are false``.
Your words: ``Your statement that ``so conclusions can be true and premises can be false,`` is wrong because it contradicts your own first statement. ``
Yes above is my statement. But neither it is wrong, nor it contradicts with my own above statement.
In my previous reply, I mentioned the only one condition for the validity of argument.
That condition starts with True Premises.
My first statement is talking about True Premises.
My second statement is talking about False Premises.
So these two statements of mine are NOT contradictory with one another.
Your point of view starts with False Premises. So your point of view does not come up to that only one condition which starts with True Premises.
Secondly there is also need to explain that argument.
Your words:
``All Africans are black-skinned (correct)
MJ is an African
MJ is black-skinned (correct)``
Actually I had mentioned the example of such valid argument whose premises are false but conclusion is true.
This argument should be read in following way:
All Africans are black-skinned (wrong -- because we know some white skinned ppl also live in Africa)
MJ is an African (correct ... and really a black-skinned as well)
MJ is black-skinned (correct -- see that even though first premise was wrong... but conclusion of this argument is right.)
Now I take your second example:
All Africans are white (wrong)
MJ is an African
MJ is white (wrong)
MJ is not white but this conclusion is deduced correctly from the above set of statements. The conclusion is wrong because the premise is wrong.
My comments:
Yes if premises are wrong, then conclusion can be wrong.
But it is wrong to say that if premises are wrong then conclusion must be wrong.
See another example where premises are wrong and conclusion also wrong:
All bats are birds.(wrong)
Birds are all marine creatures.(wrong)
Therefore, bats are marine creatures.(wrong)
But it is not right to make it a general rule that conclusion must be wrong if premises are wrong ... for those reason which I have explained above.
And Gill Sahib,,, You have good fighting spirit!
Best wishes... Regards!
Khuram
#54 Posted by freethinker on February 4, 2007 7:25:03 am
khuram:
Let me try to explain with the help of the example that you quoted earlier on.
``All Africans are black-skinned (correct)
MJ is an African
MJ is black-skinned (correct)``
Let me change your premise with a false statement. Let me write down as follows:
All Africans are white (wrong)
MJ is an African
MJ is white (wrong)
MJ is not white but this conclusion is deduced correctly from the above set of statements. The conclusion is wrong because the premise is wrong.
Mohammad Gill
Let me try to explain with the help of the example that you quoted earlier on.
``All Africans are black-skinned (correct)
MJ is an African
MJ is black-skinned (correct)``
Let me change your premise with a false statement. Let me write down as follows:
All Africans are white (wrong)
MJ is an African
MJ is white (wrong)
MJ is not white but this conclusion is deduced correctly from the above set of statements. The conclusion is wrong because the premise is wrong.
Mohammad Gill
#53 Posted by freethinker on February 4, 2007 6:54:52 am
khuram:
You wrote: ``in a valid argument, if premises are TRUE then conclusions cannot be false.``
This is correct; this is what I was saying all along.
Your statement that ``so conclusions can be true and premises can be false,`` is wrong because it contradicts your own first statement.
If you carefully ponder the example of Aristotle that I quoted in my earlier post, you should be able to comprehend the inherent fallacy in your above statements. Aristotle`s premises were wron hence his conclusions could not be correct even though his logic was correct.
Take care,
Mohammad Gill
You wrote: ``in a valid argument, if premises are TRUE then conclusions cannot be false.``
This is correct; this is what I was saying all along.
Your statement that ``so conclusions can be true and premises can be false,`` is wrong because it contradicts your own first statement.
If you carefully ponder the example of Aristotle that I quoted in my earlier post, you should be able to comprehend the inherent fallacy in your above statements. Aristotle`s premises were wron hence his conclusions could not be correct even though his logic was correct.
Take care,
Mohammad Gill
#52 Posted by khuram on February 4, 2007 6:26:34 am
Re: # 51
hahaha!!!... Gill Sahib, you rightly guessed ... I need some digestion. Actually I am feeling headach because of Bud-Hazmi ... as these days my stomach not in proper order. I shall be right after few Khatte dakars.
Off the topic: There is only and only one condition for the validity of any deductive argument. This condition is that in a valid argument, if premises are TRUE then conclusion cannot be false.
So conclusion can be true and premises can be false ... in a valid argument.
But if premises are true but conclusion is false ... then it cannot be a valid argument.
Have good time & regards!
Khuram
hahaha!!!... Gill Sahib, you rightly guessed ... I need some digestion. Actually I am feeling headach because of Bud-Hazmi ... as these days my stomach not in proper order. I shall be right after few Khatte dakars.
Off the topic: There is only and only one condition for the validity of any deductive argument. This condition is that in a valid argument, if premises are TRUE then conclusion cannot be false.
So conclusion can be true and premises can be false ... in a valid argument.
But if premises are true but conclusion is false ... then it cannot be a valid argument.
Have good time & regards!
Khuram
#51 Posted by freethinker on February 4, 2007 5:36:12 am
khuram: #47
One last attempt at explaining my point of view:
In your example, you wrote the premise statement:
All Africans are black-skinned
This statement depends for its veracity on sense-perception (sense of sight) and it is true. Hence the conclusion that MJ is black-skinned is correct.
Suppose somebody who has never seen an African (by the way, there are light-skinned Africans also) made a premise statement like this: All Africans are brown-skinned, his conclusion would be that MJ is brown-skinned. His deductive logic is correct but conclusion is factually incorrect because it is deduced from an incorrect premise. (By the way, there is no difference between sense-experience and sense-perception)
If a premise is incorrect, the conclusion can never be correct.
It seems you have read too much (which is very admirable); you need time to digest it now. I am saying this without any derogatory implication; please don`t take it wrong.
With regards,
Mohammad Gill
One last attempt at explaining my point of view:
In your example, you wrote the premise statement:
All Africans are black-skinned
This statement depends for its veracity on sense-perception (sense of sight) and it is true. Hence the conclusion that MJ is black-skinned is correct.
Suppose somebody who has never seen an African (by the way, there are light-skinned Africans also) made a premise statement like this: All Africans are brown-skinned, his conclusion would be that MJ is brown-skinned. His deductive logic is correct but conclusion is factually incorrect because it is deduced from an incorrect premise. (By the way, there is no difference between sense-experience and sense-perception)
If a premise is incorrect, the conclusion can never be correct.
It seems you have read too much (which is very admirable); you need time to digest it now. I am saying this without any derogatory implication; please don`t take it wrong.
With regards,
Mohammad Gill
#50 Posted by khuram on February 4, 2007 4:51:02 am
Re: # 49
Accepted definition of Pure Rationalism is such a Philosophical view that accepts the possibility that mind can reach to first principle (i.e. axiom) without help or involvement of sensory information. This form of Pure Rationalism downgrades sensory information, by assigning superiority to only Pure Rational Knowledge. All the detailed philosophy of reality is supposed to be rationally deducible out of that first principle. In this way pure rationality can find everything about reality even in complete absence of sensory information. This philosophical view has created a misconception as if there is some clash between sensory knowledge and rational knowledge.
In the times of Galileo, Johannes Cappler and Newton etc. when Old Greek ``rational`` (i.e. pure rational ... as supposed) theories were found to be wrong as per experimental tests, then sensory or empirical data/ information got superiority over the so-called pure rational knowledge. Then scientists started degrading all the forms of rational knowledge because no one bothered to see that actually rational knowledge was not any entity which could exist independently of empirical knowledge. General idea was that empirical knowledge and rational knowledge were having separate and independent sources of origin and that now onwards, only empirical knowledge became standard of truth. Newton’s laws of Motion declared to be Empirical Laws whereas fact is that let’s say First Law of Motion is a complete Logical Law. My question is that what is the empirical proof that an object shall always remain in the state of rest until and unless it is impressed upon by a net positive force? What could be the “empirical proof” for such a law? Obviously such a law can only be empirically tested in the time-scale of infinite period because the thing to be empirically confirmed here is that the object shall ALWAYS remain in the state of rest. So the complete empirical test can be performed only over an infinite period of time. Not only that this law cannot be empirically tested, it is also not the product of any empirical test but is the product of Logic. In order to develop this law, Newton himself had not conducted any experiment. This law happened to be the Logical Conclusion of those experiments which Galileo had performed on inclined plane. Galileo had found that a ball, in a double inclined plane, when moves downwards on downside plane, it accelerates. And the same ball when moves upside, on the other upside plane, the ball decelerates. Galileo reached to its logical conclusion that if ball is neither moving downside, nor upside; then it would neither accelerate nor decelerate. The logical conclusion, to which Newton reached was that if a ball is neither accelerating nor decelerating, then the ball shall be in the state of rest or uniform speed. And since Newton knew the concept of Force of Gravitation, so he drew another logical conclusion that downside acceleration and upside deceleration of ball was due to net downside force and net upside force respectively. The next logical conclusion was that in the absence of any “force”, the ball shall neither accelerate nor decelerate. And the other logical conclusion was that a ball, if neither accelerating, nor decelerating, it means that either it is at rest or it is moving with uniform speed. And the final logical conclusion was a simple generalization that any object, as long as it is not impressed by any net positive force, it shall either remain in the state of rest, or shall remain in continuous straight and uniform speed motion.
So despite this complete logical construction, this law is still considered to be an “Empirical Law”, and therefore, a part of “Empirical Knowledge”. Any “Rational Knowledge” is still disregarded, as scientists believe in the erroneous idea of some clash between empirical and rational knowledge. Although the scientists do sometime talk of ‘rationality’ as well and it is also true that their concept of ‘rationality’ is not akin to the philosophy of Pure Rationalism, but still their concept of rationality cannot be regarded as true rationality. It seems that scientists are not clear on the issue of type and nature of ‘rationality’ that should be the part of their procedures. In above reply, I had mentioned the True Rational Procedure in following way:
Sensory Information >>> Logical Conclusions >>> Empirical Verification
After realizing some missing, here I am going to restate the < b>True Rational Procedure in following way:
Sensory Information>>Logical Conclusions>>Empirical Verification>>Logical Interpretation of Empirical Test
Currently, scientists are disregarding “Rational Knowledge” and “Theory of Logic” as well. The true rational procedure, as identified above involves application of the theory of logic at two important stages.
Just the “Empirical Verification” cannot become a solid proof until and unless such “Empirical Verification” has been logically interpreted and explained. Those who are not scientists may not believe in the just simple truths of scientists. I believe that many illogical and inaccurate theories are still the part of established science.
Regards!
Accepted definition of Pure Rationalism is such a Philosophical view that accepts the possibility that mind can reach to first principle (i.e. axiom) without help or involvement of sensory information. This form of Pure Rationalism downgrades sensory information, by assigning superiority to only Pure Rational Knowledge. All the detailed philosophy of reality is supposed to be rationally deducible out of that first principle. In this way pure rationality can find everything about reality even in complete absence of sensory information. This philosophical view has created a misconception as if there is some clash between sensory knowledge and rational knowledge.
In the times of Galileo, Johannes Cappler and Newton etc. when Old Greek ``rational`` (i.e. pure rational ... as supposed) theories were found to be wrong as per experimental tests, then sensory or empirical data/ information got superiority over the so-called pure rational knowledge. Then scientists started degrading all the forms of rational knowledge because no one bothered to see that actually rational knowledge was not any entity which could exist independently of empirical knowledge. General idea was that empirical knowledge and rational knowledge were having separate and independent sources of origin and that now onwards, only empirical knowledge became standard of truth. Newton’s laws of Motion declared to be Empirical Laws whereas fact is that let’s say First Law of Motion is a complete Logical Law. My question is that what is the empirical proof that an object shall always remain in the state of rest until and unless it is impressed upon by a net positive force? What could be the “empirical proof” for such a law? Obviously such a law can only be empirically tested in the time-scale of infinite period because the thing to be empirically confirmed here is that the object shall ALWAYS remain in the state of rest. So the complete empirical test can be performed only over an infinite period of time. Not only that this law cannot be empirically tested, it is also not the product of any empirical test but is the product of Logic. In order to develop this law, Newton himself had not conducted any experiment. This law happened to be the Logical Conclusion of those experiments which Galileo had performed on inclined plane. Galileo had found that a ball, in a double inclined plane, when moves downwards on downside plane, it accelerates. And the same ball when moves upside, on the other upside plane, the ball decelerates. Galileo reached to its logical conclusion that if ball is neither moving downside, nor upside; then it would neither accelerate nor decelerate. The logical conclusion, to which Newton reached was that if a ball is neither accelerating nor decelerating, then the ball shall be in the state of rest or uniform speed. And since Newton knew the concept of Force of Gravitation, so he drew another logical conclusion that downside acceleration and upside deceleration of ball was due to net downside force and net upside force respectively. The next logical conclusion was that in the absence of any “force”, the ball shall neither accelerate nor decelerate. And the other logical conclusion was that a ball, if neither accelerating, nor decelerating, it means that either it is at rest or it is moving with uniform speed. And the final logical conclusion was a simple generalization that any object, as long as it is not impressed by any net positive force, it shall either remain in the state of rest, or shall remain in continuous straight and uniform speed motion.
So despite this complete logical construction, this law is still considered to be an “Empirical Law”, and therefore, a part of “Empirical Knowledge”. Any “Rational Knowledge” is still disregarded, as scientists believe in the erroneous idea of some clash between empirical and rational knowledge. Although the scientists do sometime talk of ‘rationality’ as well and it is also true that their concept of ‘rationality’ is not akin to the philosophy of Pure Rationalism, but still their concept of rationality cannot be regarded as true rationality. It seems that scientists are not clear on the issue of type and nature of ‘rationality’ that should be the part of their procedures. In above reply, I had mentioned the True Rational Procedure in following way:
Sensory Information >>> Logical Conclusions >>> Empirical Verification
After realizing some missing, here I am going to restate the < b>True Rational Procedure in following way:
Sensory Information>>Logical Conclusions>>Empirical Verification>>Logical Interpretation of Empirical Test
Currently, scientists are disregarding “Rational Knowledge” and “Theory of Logic” as well. The true rational procedure, as identified above involves application of the theory of logic at two important stages.
Just the “Empirical Verification” cannot become a solid proof until and unless such “Empirical Verification” has been logically interpreted and explained. Those who are not scientists may not believe in the just simple truths of scientists. I believe that many illogical and inaccurate theories are still the part of established science.
Regards!
#49 Posted by Inquirer on February 4, 2007 1:02:20 am
Re: # 46, khuram:
I am afraid we are talking across disciplines. You are making distinctions between ``pure`` and ``true`` rationalists. This terminology needs to be defined as we have to assure our definitions of the words are shared otherwise we can not hope to reach any agreement and understanding. Victor Hugo has made the famous statement that if we want to discuss any thing seriously we have to agree on common definitions of words we use.
freethinker and I are using the terms in their usually accepted senses but you may be a logician and are using words with special definitions. For freethinker and me theoretician is a person who develops mental constructs based on empirical information. Peer-reviewed expeimental information in science is considered to be truth that has to be explained by mental constructs. It is hoped that the constructs will be defensible per logic requirements and they generally are. But per se, the scientists do not skin the words or fret over the arrangements of the words. Truth for them is much more substantial and simpler.
I am afraid we are talking across disciplines. You are making distinctions between ``pure`` and ``true`` rationalists. This terminology needs to be defined as we have to assure our definitions of the words are shared otherwise we can not hope to reach any agreement and understanding. Victor Hugo has made the famous statement that if we want to discuss any thing seriously we have to agree on common definitions of words we use.
freethinker and I are using the terms in their usually accepted senses but you may be a logician and are using words with special definitions. For freethinker and me theoretician is a person who develops mental constructs based on empirical information. Peer-reviewed expeimental information in science is considered to be truth that has to be explained by mental constructs. It is hoped that the constructs will be defensible per logic requirements and they generally are. But per se, the scientists do not skin the words or fret over the arrangements of the words. Truth for them is much more substantial and simpler.
#48 Posted by khuram on February 3, 2007 11:22:36 pm
Re: # 47
Sorry for two mistakes in above.
First typing mistake ... plz read ``Mr. Gill`` ... Mill...typing mistake
Secondly I explained that point to Inquirer in my reply #45 .... It should be seen below this reply because replies are nested and not ordered.
Thanks!
Sorry for two mistakes in above.
First typing mistake ... plz read ``Mr. Gill`` ... Mill...typing mistake
Secondly I explained that point to Inquirer in my reply #45 .... It should be seen below this reply because replies are nested and not ordered.
Thanks!
#47 Posted by khuram on February 3, 2007 11:15:33 pm
Re: # 41
I did not believe that scientists are Pure Rationalists. What I believe is that they are NOT True Rationalists. I have explained this point in my above reply to Inquirer.
Your Following Words:
``If the premises are wrong, the conclusions obtained by deductive logic will necessarily be wrong. I had published an article “Reverse Logic in the Philosophy of God” in Free Inquiry, Fall 2002, Vol.22, No.4, in which I had discussed this point. Read it if you have time.``
Sorry to say Mill Gill,,, your point is wrong. We cannot blame ``Free Inquiry`` journal for why they published a logically wrong point ... because Publishers cannot be supposed to be the expert of logic theory. See the following example of a valid deductive argument ... with false premises but true conclusion:
All Africans are black skinned
Michael Jordan is an African
So, he is black skinned
Thanks and Regards!
I did not believe that scientists are Pure Rationalists. What I believe is that they are NOT True Rationalists. I have explained this point in my above reply to Inquirer.
Your Following Words:
``If the premises are wrong, the conclusions obtained by deductive logic will necessarily be wrong. I had published an article “Reverse Logic in the Philosophy of God” in Free Inquiry, Fall 2002, Vol.22, No.4, in which I had discussed this point. Read it if you have time.``
Sorry to say Mill Gill,,, your point is wrong. We cannot blame ``Free Inquiry`` journal for why they published a logically wrong point ... because Publishers cannot be supposed to be the expert of logic theory. See the following example of a valid deductive argument ... with false premises but true conclusion:
All Africans are black skinned
Michael Jordan is an African
So, he is black skinned
Thanks and Regards!
#46 Posted by khuram on February 3, 2007 10:51:41 pm
@ Inquirer
Sorry I missed your other point.
Pure Rationalism is logically wrong not just directly because there are so many words in the Philosophy of Descartes. At the most we can say that the thing proved is that Descartes` Philosophy is Not Pure Rationalism.
Pure Rationalism Philosophy is logically wrong because it is impossible to construct a Detailed Philosophy out of a single, or just few First Principle/s. A few ``first principles`` would be having just few words in them. Then all the detailed Philosophy shall be consisted of just those few words, because this is the hard limitation of deductive logic. Practically it is impossible to construct a detailed philosophy which may be composed of different arrangements of just few words. So the basic idea of Pure Rationalism is a misleading idea.
Thanks!
Sorry I missed your other point.
Pure Rationalism is logically wrong not just directly because there are so many words in the Philosophy of Descartes. At the most we can say that the thing proved is that Descartes` Philosophy is Not Pure Rationalism.
Pure Rationalism Philosophy is logically wrong because it is impossible to construct a Detailed Philosophy out of a single, or just few First Principle/s. A few ``first principles`` would be having just few words in them. Then all the detailed Philosophy shall be consisted of just those few words, because this is the hard limitation of deductive logic. Practically it is impossible to construct a detailed philosophy which may be composed of different arrangements of just few words. So the basic idea of Pure Rationalism is a misleading idea.
Thanks!
#45 Posted by khuram on February 3, 2007 10:34:24 pm
@ Inquirer
``All A is B
All B is C
Conclusion: All A is C ``
****If A, B, and C are sets. Then the above means: A is a subset of B and B is a subset of C. Therefore A is necessarily a subset of C.****
There is nothing wrong!!!!
Yes there is nothing wrong. But my focus point was just that any deductive conclusion is not more than just re-arrangement of those words which are already contained in the premises. Pure Rationalism can be eaisily proved to be logically wrong by just highlighting this fact.
Your Next Points:
``Rationalism does not mean getting caught in personal intellectual coccoon. A true rationalist explicitly recognizes the limitation of theories by stating the implicit assumptions on which a theory is founded.
It is true (as established by the Incompleteness Theorem) completely self-consistent description of reality cannot be made.
Actually, the reality consists of its fact as well as its perception and therefore it cannot be universal. The consensual agreement among the cognoscenti is central to any description of reality.``
I have no objection against a True Rationalist. I have objections against only Pure Rationalist. A True Rationalist knows the importance of sensory or empirical information. But he doesn`t confine himself in just empirical procedures. The procedure of a True Rationalist can be stated like:
Sensory Information >>> Logical Conclusions >>> Empirical Verification
I have objections against ``established`` scientists also. They are Not True Rationalists because they ignore the LOGIC part of this true procedure. If you are a Phd. in Physics, I am hopeful that you migh not have seen Theory of Logic as a part of your syllabus.
Thanks!
``All A is B
All B is C
Conclusion: All A is C ``
****If A, B, and C are sets. Then the above means: A is a subset of B and B is a subset of C. Therefore A is necessarily a subset of C.****
There is nothing wrong!!!!
Yes there is nothing wrong. But my focus point was just that any deductive conclusion is not more than just re-arrangement of those words which are already contained in the premises. Pure Rationalism can be eaisily proved to be logically wrong by just highlighting this fact.
Your Next Points:
``Rationalism does not mean getting caught in personal intellectual coccoon. A true rationalist explicitly recognizes the limitation of theories by stating the implicit assumptions on which a theory is founded.
It is true (as established by the Incompleteness Theorem) completely self-consistent description of reality cannot be made.
Actually, the reality consists of its fact as well as its perception and therefore it cannot be universal. The consensual agreement among the cognoscenti is central to any description of reality.``
I have no objection against a True Rationalist. I have objections against only Pure Rationalist. A True Rationalist knows the importance of sensory or empirical information. But he doesn`t confine himself in just empirical procedures. The procedure of a True Rationalist can be stated like:
Sensory Information >>> Logical Conclusions >>> Empirical Verification
I have objections against ``established`` scientists also. They are Not True Rationalists because they ignore the LOGIC part of this true procedure. If you are a Phd. in Physics, I am hopeful that you migh not have seen Theory of Logic as a part of your syllabus.
Thanks!
#44 Posted by Inquirer on February 3, 2007 7:39:32 pm
Re: # 43, freethinker:
Thanks. I saw the abstract and I agree with the tack there. The core idea of God is not that there is unique phenomenology related to it. It is primarily desire to seek a crutch in life. Some people are incapable of addressing mortality and therefore they have to conjure something that will exist after their own set of molecules disintegrate.
Thanks. I saw the abstract and I agree with the tack there. The core idea of God is not that there is unique phenomenology related to it. It is primarily desire to seek a crutch in life. Some people are incapable of addressing mortality and therefore they have to conjure something that will exist after their own set of molecules disintegrate.
#43 Posted by freethinker on February 3, 2007 6:22:51 pm
Inquire:
You can search on Google or yahoo and you will find the article at a couple of places. Unfortunately, the complete article is not available free of charge; only the abstract is accessible. If you can find the magazine ``Free Inquiry`` in a library, you might read the complete article in it.
Mohammad Gill
You can search on Google or yahoo and you will find the article at a couple of places. Unfortunately, the complete article is not available free of charge; only the abstract is accessible. If you can find the magazine ``Free Inquiry`` in a library, you might read the complete article in it.
Mohammad Gill
#42 Posted by Inquirer on February 3, 2007 5:44:15 pm
Re: # 41, freethinker:
Thanks. Could you provide the electronic access for the article referred to by you in this post.
Thanks. Could you provide the electronic access for the article referred to by you in this post.
#41 Posted by freethinker on February 3, 2007 2:14:06 pm
Khuram:
I am sorry I confused your name with khurram. As a matter of fact, I didn’t realize that two khur(r)ams were interacting with me.
I still see some confusion in your thinking but I’ll let it pass. However, scientists are not purely rationalists as you stated; even the theoretical scientists are not purely rationalists. They are rational (in the sense of logical) but not purely rationalists. I quoted Aristotle who was purely rationalist and was wrong in the example I quoted.
If the premises are wrong, the conclusions obtained by deductive logic will necessarily be wrong. I had published an article “Reverse Logic in the Philosophy of God” in Free Inquiry, Fall 2002, Vol.22, No.4, in which I had discussed this point. Read it if you have time.
Read the post #38 by Inquirer; it might help to clarify further some of these issues for you.
Regards,
Mohammad Gill
I am sorry I confused your name with khurram. As a matter of fact, I didn’t realize that two khur(r)ams were interacting with me.
I still see some confusion in your thinking but I’ll let it pass. However, scientists are not purely rationalists as you stated; even the theoretical scientists are not purely rationalists. They are rational (in the sense of logical) but not purely rationalists. I quoted Aristotle who was purely rationalist and was wrong in the example I quoted.
If the premises are wrong, the conclusions obtained by deductive logic will necessarily be wrong. I had published an article “Reverse Logic in the Philosophy of God” in Free Inquiry, Fall 2002, Vol.22, No.4, in which I had discussed this point. Read it if you have time.
Read the post #38 by Inquirer; it might help to clarify further some of these issues for you.
Regards,
Mohammad Gill
#40 Posted by Inquirer on February 3, 2007 1:15:04 pm
To ALL:
Rationalism does not mean getting caught in personal intellectual coccoon. A true rationalist explicitly recognizes the limitation of theories by stating the implicit assumptions on which a theory is founded.
It is true (as established by the Incompleteness Theorem) completely self-consistent description of reality cannot be made.
Actually, the reality consists of its fact as well as its perception and therefore it cannot be universal. The consensual agreement among the cognoscenti is central to any description of reality.
Rationalism does not mean getting caught in personal intellectual coccoon. A true rationalist explicitly recognizes the limitation of theories by stating the implicit assumptions on which a theory is founded.
It is true (as established by the Incompleteness Theorem) completely self-consistent description of reality cannot be made.
Actually, the reality consists of its fact as well as its perception and therefore it cannot be universal. The consensual agreement among the cognoscenti is central to any description of reality.
#39 Posted by Inquirer on February 3, 2007 12:52:41 pm
Re: # 38, khuram:
``All A is B
All B is C
Conclusion: All A is C ``
****If A, B, and C are sets. Then the above means: A is a subset of B and B is a subset of C. Therefore A is necessarily a subset of C.****
There is nothing wrong!!!!
``In this conclusion, not a single word is anything new. All these four words are already contained in the premises. So in any deductive conclusion, all the contents of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In the conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed.
xxxx
Pure Rationalism is logically wrong....!!! because actually there are so many words in the philosophy of Descartes.``
****This is baloney. Nothing but obfuscation!!!!****
``All A is B
All B is C
Conclusion: All A is C ``
****If A, B, and C are sets. Then the above means: A is a subset of B and B is a subset of C. Therefore A is necessarily a subset of C.****
There is nothing wrong!!!!
``In this conclusion, not a single word is anything new. All these four words are already contained in the premises. So in any deductive conclusion, all the contents of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In the conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed.
xxxx
Pure Rationalism is logically wrong....!!! because actually there are so many words in the philosophy of Descartes.``
****This is baloney. Nothing but obfuscation!!!!****
#38 Posted by khuram on February 3, 2007 10:07:30 am
Gill Sahib,
Sir I also might have created some confusions ... that I should resolve now. But see that you also are confusing ``khuram`` with ``khurram`` (don`t mind sir, just kidding). Anyway I try to resolve my part of confusions:
The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.
First of all I do not accept the idea of ``pure rational reasoning``. For me, the idea of a Rationalist that mind can find the first principle without any involvement of sensory information is WRONG AB INITIO.
In this connection, for me, point of view of John Locke is true that all basic knowledge comes only through the channel of senses. Mind cannot reach to any first principle without involvement of sensory information.
A Rationalist like Descartes or Hegel says that mind, at its own, can reach to first principle. All other knowledge of reality then can be deduced out of that first principle. Thus this form of Pure Rationalism works on deductive logic.
Now I try to explain that this ``Pure Rationalism`` is deductive logically inaccurate. Consider the following simple deductive argument:
All A is B
All B is C
Conclusion: All A is C
Now I try to analyze this ``conclusion``. This deductive conclusion consists of four words which are (i) All, (ii) A, (iii) is (iv) C
In this conclusion, not a single word is anything new. All these four words are already contained in the premises. So in any deductive conclusion, all the contents of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In the conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed.
Now take the example of a renowned first principle i.e. ``Cogito Ergo Sum``. Descartes claims that this is the first principle of his philosophy. In the Pure Rationalism, all other contents of philosophy must have to be deduced out of this first principle.
Now we know that in any deductive conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed. What it means? If Descartes` philosophy is really a Pure Rationalism, then there should not be more than three words in his whole detailed philosophy.
Pure Rationalism is logically wrong....!!! because actually there are so many words in the philosophy of Descartes. Descartes is having a false claim that he is pure Rationalist Philosopher. In the real sense, his Philosophy could not go against the basic idea of John Locke. That`s why his detailed philosophy is having so many words ... which are although seeming to be the part of reasoning ... but actually have come from sensory information.
Now I again come to your statement. You wrote:
The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.
Sensory information is considered to be opposed to rational reasoning by the Pure Rationalist Philosophers. Pure Rationalists` point of view is logically wrong so your statement is also logically wrong.
Fact is not that reasoning is opposed to sensory information. Fact is that reasoning is actually a RE-ARRANGEMENT of sensory information.
Your next statement:
``You see the Sun rising in the east and setting in the west. This information is gained by sense-perception. You see it every day.``
I do not consider it the product of sense-perception. Rather, I consider it the product of sense-experience. I already have given the link of article where I have explained this point. If you insist on your view-point, then you should prove that my explanation is wrong. For the ready reference, I am again giving the same link: Knowledge of Objects & Properties.
Your Further Points:
A classical example of pure rational information is that of Aristotle who believed that Earth was the center of the universe because it was the abode of man who is the best creation of God. All the planets including Sun revolve around the Earth. Circle is the best form and hence the planets move in circular orbits. God is unchanging and permanent, so the speed of the planets is constant.
All these three rational viewpoints were wrong. Copernicus placed Earth at the center of the universe (solar system) to simplify the astronomical computations. But Johannes Kepler showed conclusively that Aristotle was wrong on all the three counts. He used Tycho Brahe’s data and found that things get simplified if Sun is placed at the center and let Earth to revolve around it (as Copernicus had suggested). He also found that the planets slowed down when they were farther from Sun and speeded up when they were nearer. Hence the speed of the planets was not constant. He also found that the planets moved in elliptical orbits rather than circular as was conjectured by Aristotle.
Therefore, the final test of the veracity of a theory is empirical.
My opinion is that all knowkledge is basically empirical ... because point of view of John Locke i.e. an Empiricist, was right.
But in my opinion, there is no clash between ``empirical knowledge`` and the so-called ``rational knowledge``. Rational Knowledge is actually just a re-arrangement of empirical knowledge. This point of view, basically, was originated by David Hume. This classical example of ``Earth Centric`` vs ``Solar Centric``, actually is NOT the story of clash between ``empirical knowledge`` and ``rational knowledge``. Actually this is the story of improvements and refinements in ``Rational Knowledge``. I am not talking of ``Rational Knowledge`` of a Pure Rationalist Philosopher. I am talking of that ``Rational Knowledge`` which takes input from sensory information ... because actually ``Rational Knowledge`` is a ``re-arrangement`` of sensory information. You can see the same story, with this true perspective in my article on: ``Knowledge Explosion in the Modern Times``.
My point of view is different from the point of view of ``established`` scientists. But I insist on my point. Since scientists take ``Rational Knowledge`` in the sense of a ``Pure Rational Philosopher`` ... so they wrongfully and erroneously are down grading the ``Rational Knowledge``. If we take ``Rational Knowledge`` in the sense of ``re-arrangement`` of sensory information, then we shall realize the true importance of Rational Knowledge. Then we shall know that Empirical Knowledge is actually the Raw Material whereas the Finished Product is the Rational Knowledge.
We should pay some attention towards the refinement and improvement of our finished product also. Currently we are emphasizing only on ``empirical knowledge`` ... And we are disregarding the theory of logic. So this this my point.
And about ``Cause Effects``. I had mentioned that point as a reply to Mr. Khurram`s point. I understand and accept your point as well.
Thanks and Regards!
Sir I also might have created some confusions ... that I should resolve now. But see that you also are confusing ``khuram`` with ``khurram`` (don`t mind sir, just kidding). Anyway I try to resolve my part of confusions:
The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.
First of all I do not accept the idea of ``pure rational reasoning``. For me, the idea of a Rationalist that mind can find the first principle without any involvement of sensory information is WRONG AB INITIO.
In this connection, for me, point of view of John Locke is true that all basic knowledge comes only through the channel of senses. Mind cannot reach to any first principle without involvement of sensory information.
A Rationalist like Descartes or Hegel says that mind, at its own, can reach to first principle. All other knowledge of reality then can be deduced out of that first principle. Thus this form of Pure Rationalism works on deductive logic.
Now I try to explain that this ``Pure Rationalism`` is deductive logically inaccurate. Consider the following simple deductive argument:
All A is B
All B is C
Conclusion: All A is C
Now I try to analyze this ``conclusion``. This deductive conclusion consists of four words which are (i) All, (ii) A, (iii) is (iv) C
In this conclusion, not a single word is anything new. All these four words are already contained in the premises. So in any deductive conclusion, all the contents of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In the conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed.
Now take the example of a renowned first principle i.e. ``Cogito Ergo Sum``. Descartes claims that this is the first principle of his philosophy. In the Pure Rationalism, all other contents of philosophy must have to be deduced out of this first principle.
Now we know that in any deductive conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed. What it means? If Descartes` philosophy is really a Pure Rationalism, then there should not be more than three words in his whole detailed philosophy.
Pure Rationalism is logically wrong....!!! because actually there are so many words in the philosophy of Descartes. Descartes is having a false claim that he is pure Rationalist Philosopher. In the real sense, his Philosophy could not go against the basic idea of John Locke. That`s why his detailed philosophy is having so many words ... which are although seeming to be the part of reasoning ... but actually have come from sensory information.
Now I again come to your statement. You wrote:
The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.
Sensory information is considered to be opposed to rational reasoning by the Pure Rationalist Philosophers. Pure Rationalists` point of view is logically wrong so your statement is also logically wrong.
Fact is not that reasoning is opposed to sensory information. Fact is that reasoning is actually a RE-ARRANGEMENT of sensory information.
Your next statement:
``You see the Sun rising in the east and setting in the west. This information is gained by sense-perception. You see it every day.``
I do not consider it the product of sense-perception. Rather, I consider it the product of sense-experience. I already have given the link of article where I have explained this point. If you insist on your view-point, then you should prove that my explanation is wrong. For the ready reference, I am again giving the same link: Knowledge of Objects & Properties.
Your Further Points:
A classical example of pure rational information is that of Aristotle who believed that Earth was the center of the universe because it was the abode of man who is the best creation of God. All the planets including Sun revolve around the Earth. Circle is the best form and hence the planets move in circular orbits. God is unchanging and permanent, so the speed of the planets is constant.
All these three rational viewpoints were wrong. Copernicus placed Earth at the center of the universe (solar system) to simplify the astronomical computations. But Johannes Kepler showed conclusively that Aristotle was wrong on all the three counts. He used Tycho Brahe’s data and found that things get simplified if Sun is placed at the center and let Earth to revolve around it (as Copernicus had suggested). He also found that the planets slowed down when they were farther from Sun and speeded up when they were nearer. Hence the speed of the planets was not constant. He also found that the planets moved in elliptical orbits rather than circular as was conjectured by Aristotle.
Therefore, the final test of the veracity of a theory is empirical.
My opinion is that all knowkledge is basically empirical ... because point of view of John Locke i.e. an Empiricist, was right.
But in my opinion, there is no clash between ``empirical knowledge`` and the so-called ``rational knowledge``. Rational Knowledge is actually just a re-arrangement of empirical knowledge. This point of view, basically, was originated by David Hume. This classical example of ``Earth Centric`` vs ``Solar Centric``, actually is NOT the story of clash between ``empirical knowledge`` and ``rational knowledge``. Actually this is the story of improvements and refinements in ``Rational Knowledge``. I am not talking of ``Rational Knowledge`` of a Pure Rationalist Philosopher. I am talking of that ``Rational Knowledge`` which takes input from sensory information ... because actually ``Rational Knowledge`` is a ``re-arrangement`` of sensory information. You can see the same story, with this true perspective in my article on: ``Knowledge Explosion in the Modern Times``.
My point of view is different from the point of view of ``established`` scientists. But I insist on my point. Since scientists take ``Rational Knowledge`` in the sense of a ``Pure Rational Philosopher`` ... so they wrongfully and erroneously are down grading the ``Rational Knowledge``. If we take ``Rational Knowledge`` in the sense of ``re-arrangement`` of sensory information, then we shall realize the true importance of Rational Knowledge. Then we shall know that Empirical Knowledge is actually the Raw Material whereas the Finished Product is the Rational Knowledge.
We should pay some attention towards the refinement and improvement of our finished product also. Currently we are emphasizing only on ``empirical knowledge`` ... And we are disregarding the theory of logic. So this this my point.
And about ``Cause Effects``. I had mentioned that point as a reply to Mr. Khurram`s point. I understand and accept your point as well.
Thanks and Regards!