Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar
Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: attempt at a scientific definition of value Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The concept value within value ontology refers to that which constitutes the momentum of the entity’s self-sustaining through time. Value is incorporated in the particle as force that effectively counters, or harnesses against entropy. A particles self-valuing is the structure-in-time (path, circuitry) of its substance (energy, force, power to effect) in which other substance (energy, force, power to effect) is incorporated as increasing momentum of this structure-in-time. This structure in time is a constant in as far as it apprehends itself in terms of its own momentum, and these terms are its “values”. Its momentum is its “self-valuing”, the standard to its values. It persists in as far as it apprehends itself as necessary to itself, thereby necessary to its values.
As soon as it apprehends values separately from its own necessity to itself (self-valuing), it begins to disintegrate.
Value is directly translated into, or integrated as, momentum of the circular path of power to effect (thereby to empower) itself.
This power to effect and re-cause itself amounts also in power to cause change outside of itself.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring
Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22
PostSubject: Re: attempt at a scientific definition of value Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I dont think value is absolute, meaning beyond human, and a concrete ethereal hierarchy of unchangeable values. I think the closest absolute objective function of value is life itself. The healthy and stable functioning of a life that is the highest human value. The exceptions are of course things like, when a human who commits suicide could be said to have valued death (perhaps they would have valued life more if not for certain things in their environment that beyond their control became to much). The saying ‘one mans trash is another mans treasure’ comes to mind when thinking of the nature of value. One man may value porn and sex while another values abstinence. One may value alcohol while another does not. One may value experimenting with pain as a form of pleasure, one may value avoiding pain at all costs. So is your whole thing attempting to quantize and categorize thus creating the absolute objective mapping of human value systems, and what they lead to, what they truly provide, how the value of what they provide can be quantized? So to be able to say ‘this person is objectively wrong for valuing this or my values are more valuable then yours’? A main objective (whether they like it or not or would like to admit it or not) shared value of humans is money. This is how humans ensure their value of life, which I believe is the most valuable thing, so it is quite intuitive and obvious that money, the means in which that is accomplished is the most valuable thing. This leads to a very superficial discovery, in a sense discrediting intellectuality and suggesting ignorance is bliss, as long as you have money to provide your essentials and a healthy body there is nothing more you can truly hope for, or those are of the highest values, everything else that you may desire or do is just a form of entertainment, novelty, to see what we can see and do what we can do, exploring potentials in physicality and/or thought.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar
Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: attempt at a scientific definition of value Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Values are dictated by the subject, not the other way around. The highest value is the valuer, per definition. If there is no valuer, there can be no value.
Value ontology is the ontology of the valuer, which is the hub of the universe.
A value can be something that an atom requires to exist. It’s not a product of consciousness. Consciousness is a highly complex form of valuing.
Establishing objective value is the precise opposite of what VO does.
Life is not itself necessarily of value to the one who is living it. That is why people kill themselves. Life is a result of valuing. Life is valuing, and if it values itself, it will keep on living. But it will only value itself because it is a means to attain to certain values. There is no “will to live”: at the basis of life, life is a contingency of the will to attain values.
I realize that this is a deeply radical reversal of perspective.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring
Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22
PostSubject: Re: attempt at a scientific definition of value Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Values are dictated by the subject, not the other way around. The highest value is the valuer, per definition. If there is no valuer, there can be no value.
Value ontology is the ontology of the valuer, which is the hub of the universe.
A value can be something that an atom requires to exist. It’s not a product of consciousness. Consciousness is a highly complex form of valuing.
Establishing objective value is the precise opposite of what VO does.
Life is not itself necessarily of value to the one who is living it. That is why people kill themselves. Life is a result of valuing. Life is valuing, and if it values itself, it will keep on living. But it will only value itself because it is a means to attain to certain values. There is no “will to live”: at the basis of life, life is a contingency of the will to attain values.
I realize that this is a deeply radical reversal of perspective.
First your opening line you state this " The highest value is the valuer, per definition. If there is no valuer, there can be no value."
which contradicts your last paragraph, right?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar
Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: attempt at a scientific definition of value Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No. The last paragraph says that if there is no value, the valuer will come to cease to exist. It say nothing about where there is no valuer.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar
Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: QM Double Slit Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
With the double slit experiment, you always hear: “an electron behaves both like a particle and a wave” or “an electron behaves now like a particle and then as a wave”. That’s misleadingly phrased.
When the electrons are quantized by influencing them from another frame of reference, their pattern of distribution is like that of particles, and if you do not influence them from this other spacetime frame, they distribute according to the logic of wavefunctions.
I think that the coherence of their arrival pattern is guaranteed only if their reference frame is left intact, when all that matters is the coherence between the charge of the source and the charge of the impact.
The electrons do not need to exist as such, they are only the transference of charge. If man insists on measuring this quantifyingly, the electrons which are actually measured as individual causal agents (detected) do not thereafter alter their quantized state. They have been brought into the context of another reference frame, and can not at the same time disregard this frame.
The pure frame involves only the charge (value) of the electron source, which is a turbulence, and its wavelike (highly interactive) distribution.
Analogical suggestion - value will distribute differently when it is quantized/monetized, then when it is distributed in a direct transaction, where the frame of reference is only the relation between giver and receiver. In this context we might say that “meaning” is left intact. I can imagine that this can be extrapolated to the quantum state, in the sense that, very broadly, “il n’y a pas de hors-texte” applies and the QM “weirdness” can be seen as a hermeneutical incompetence.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar
Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I can’t grasp the math, but I grasp the logic of it, which seems implicit in relativity itself. We’ve established that c is the only constant which is present in all measurements. All measurements are based on this constancy.
The electrons are measured (experience to be present, affecting) by being exposed to c as relative to reference frame of the observer. Their behavior is thus bent to the measure of the observer, which is to say that they are, at that moment, electrons. We are necessarily measuring the electrons that apply to c as it is from our frame of reference, which means a distribution that is physically logical. But if this reference frame is not involved, there is no necessity for peak-quantity to appear as a click in a frame of reference, but simply the possibility of light from any frame of reference.
And equally as gravity is curved, the peaking and declining functions on the screen are representations of potentiating optimizations, self-accumulative (content to the second power), climaxing and silencing. The behavior of undetected electricity the behavior of potential itself reacting to itself. As soon as potential becomes manifest, it ceases to exist as part of the field it arose from. Similarly souls are born into matter and die into the Bitter Sea.
It leaves me wondering - what is the contradiction between relativity and QM?
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar
Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Nature herself doesn’t know where the electron will go”.
- the electron as self-valuing will move in accordance to its context (its own valuing; direction-response-continuum), the electron as valued in terms of observer will go in accordance with the observers context.
Prediction without measurement is implicit, prediction with measurement is distribution.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar
Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:48 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It’s only the nature of experimenting, not the nature of nature, that produces these anomalies.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom
PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes I’ve read this before, it represents a thus-far insurmountable obstacle for experimental method in these instances, the fact that the experimental design itself is somehow setting up a “resonance” or “circuit” that is actually influencing/creating the anomalies. This has a name, but I can’t remember it at the moment.
If quanta/light, “photons”, are minimal valuing then they must take on the nature of that through which they move, they must be secondary values OR value-less to such a medium-frame. c would be an example of valuelessness of light with respect to another frame, to certain properties of a frame; double slit would be an example of absolute secondary value-assumption to another frame, to certain properties of a frame (namely, the experimental setup).
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N
“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom
PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:45 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Therefore in the case of these experiments we get a strong-precise valuing (the human experimenting) encountering either an absolute self-value (e.g. c) or an absolute no-self-value (e.g. wave collapse, double slit anomalies). But this interesting question of how this interaction takes place and is even possible aside, what determines the difference between either absolute self-valuing of “light” or absolute no-self-valuing of “light”?
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N
“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar
Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In philosophers terms, will to power.
The photons or electrons (I’ll use photons here) moving through the slits are influenced by whatever material is calibrated to ‘make sense of them’ (hit them to draw specific energy from them) at the slits.
You can’t measure the quanta at the slits without actually having something collide with them. The calibration of that ‘hit’ is set in terms of the experimenters reference frame.
It’s important to note that only if they are successfully manipulated so as to affect the observer at the slits, then they are observed as quanta with sufficient individual momentum to behave as particles.
If the emitted measuring energy is so weak (emitting photons or whatever at too great intervals) as to miss a quantum, then the quantum does not behave accordingly to being influenced as a quantum.
It’s very literal value ontological logic at work.
The how of this is implicit in the a priori definition of the required outcome. So we can pull a philosophers trick and reverse the phrasing of the conclusion of the experiment: The influence is only sufficient to disturb the interference pattern if it manages to quantize the light.
Light appears to not be “made of photons” per se, rather, photons are the minimal form in which light is measured as a unit.
A photon is the epistemic unit of light.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring
Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22
PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
It leaves me wondering - what is the contradiction between relativity and QM?
The contradiction, has to do with gravity, its more of an undiscovered successful bridging of the two then a contradiction because I believe they are both successful in their own arenas, General relativity being a description of the macro phenomenon of gravity down to a certain small point, and QM being the descriptions of the most micro fundamentality of what the universe is made of. The problem, though it is posited Gravitons exist (which would be the particle of the gravity field, as Photons are the particle of the EM field) the problem is they cant experimentally access gravitons though I believe they are trying and have been. Because to discover the details of the particles of matter of nature we smash them together and observe their characteristics in scattering, This is more difficult to do in an effort to search for and grasp gravities physical essence because I think it has something to do with gravities physical essence being space itself, and what happens is we just create mini black holes…But I only know relative generalities about this topic so you would probably be better off asking google.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar
Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: QM Double Slit Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Imafungi wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
It leaves me wondering - what is the contradiction between relativity and QM?
The contradiction, has to do with gravity, its more of an undiscovered successful bridging of the two then a contradiction because I believe they are both successful in their own arenas, General relativity being a description of the macro phenomenon of gravity down to a certain small point, and QM being the descriptions of the most micro fundamentality of what the universe is made of. The problem, though it is posited Gravitons exist (which would be the particle of the gravity field, as Photons are the particle of the EM field) the problem is they cant experimentally access gravitons though I believe they are trying and have been. Because to discover the details of the particles of matter of nature we smash them together and observe their characteristics in scattering, This is more difficult to do in an effort to search for and grasp gravities physical essence because I think it has something to do with gravities physical essence being space itself, and what happens is we just create mini black holes…But I only know relative generalities about this topic so you would probably be better off asking google.
This sounds plausible - it is like modern science to insist that gravity, which is the very manifestation of coherence and structuring, has itself ‘particles’ separate of the particles that ‘have’, are gravity.
Would Einsteins formula of mass and energy not be made into an irrelevancy by the existence of a particular gravity-carrier?
m = (e/c^2) + ‘gravitons’…
Message
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom
PostSubject: Magnetic fields Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
How do they work? I’ve been reading a lot of science lately and only describes what magnets and magnetic fields are, in terms of using various descriptions and definitions involving how atoms rotate so to point in the same direction. But it does not actually explain magnetism at all.
I want to know what these “magnetic lines of force” literally are. And I can’t seem to find any explanations, only descriptions.
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N
“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
PostSubject: Re: Magnetic fields Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A magnetic field is merely a changing electric field. The “magnetic lines of force” are merely a method for trying to display how much the electric field is changing in that space.
The magnetic field is an “electric current” void of the electrons themselves.
Additionally, the electric field is the “electric potential”. A potential is not a physical entity, rather merely a measure of a situation. But a changing potential is what physical reality is made of. Thus the magnetic field is the “stuff of physical reality”. After finally learning more about physics and getting it straight in his mind, Feynman announced that he wished that he had never heard of the electric field. And yet without the field of potential, there can be no field of change in potential. Without the electric field, there can be no magnetic field.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom
PostSubject: Re: Magnetic fields Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Explain, “The magnetic field is an “electric current” void of the electrons themselves”, in light of the fact that electricity is the flow of electrons.
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N
“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
PostSubject: Re: Magnetic fields Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Explain, “The magnetic field is an “electric current” void of the electrons themselves”, in light of the fact that electricity is the flow of electrons.
Electricity is a flow of Charge (aka “potential”), originally thought to be stemming merely from electrons. But then it was discovered that electrons are merely the electric field congested at one point. People argue about why it congests, but no one argues that it isn’t literally made of electromagnetic energy and nothing else.
When electric current flows through a wire, the electrons are prevalent, but they merely represent how much electric charge, “electric potential energy” is flowing. Once a charge is in motion, it is referred to as “kinetic energy” rather than “potential energy”. Either way, the current flows due to the difference in potential between two points. As the circuit attempts to balance that difference, electrons (bits of congested EM) rush between the points.
The issue is merely that any changing or moving electric field is what is called a “magnetic field”. When there are no electrons to flow in the attempt to balance a difference in potential, any changing that can be accomplished is done merely by the field itself without little bits of congested, concentrated charge, “electrons”.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: Magnetic fields Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A magnetic field operates the same way all fields operate. The concept of field itself is very important, seeing as that is all there is. Realize that non-composite sub-atomic particles are perfectly identical. Two electrons do not just look the same, two photons do not just look the same, they are the same. As identical as two number 3s. In accordance with the fundamental principle of Aristotelian logic, that A is A, electron is electron. There is only “one” electron, the localization of the omnipresent electron-field (electromagnetic tensor) which extends throughout the matrix of space time. When that field’s effect is localized in a single point within space time, it has been quantized. It’s quanta is the electron. When it is localized in this manner it displays a particle effect in a single location, when it is not localized then it displays a wave effect, hence particle-wave duality. This same thing works with all non-composite particles; photons, bosons, etc. Even when we push or pull on something, we are experiencing electromagnetism due to inter-molecular forces. The magnetic dipole moments are not aligned in most materials, they’re random, and thus the magnetic field is zero; the dipoles are aligned in several materials though, like the magnets we put on fridges, (because the magnet on the fridge has unpaired electrons and all electrons cancel one another one when paired) and thus they produce a positively valued magnetic field that we can readily perceive. The centripetal force is either increased or decreased on electrons depending on the direction of their orbit, when exposed to a magnetic field (most fields are of zero value.) They will either be pulled away or drawn further into the nucleus of the corresponding atom. But we don’t understand any of the forces of nature at their most fundamental level, because we understand them only as separate forces now.
In asking about why the electromagnetic force operates as it does, you are basically asking why electrons have the spin and charge property they do, because that force is just a mathematical description of how the electrons align and interact with one another. There are many theories. Perhaps by absorbing the virtual photons generated in the electric field, the electrons also absorb some of the angular momentum of the photons and are endowed in this manner with a particular spin and charge.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring
Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22
PostSubject: Re: Magnetic fields Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
In asking about why the electromagnetic force operates as it does, you are basically asking why electrons have the spin and charge property they do, because that force is just a mathematical description of how the electrons align and interact with one another. There are many theories. Perhaps by absorbing the virtual photons generated in the electric field, the electrons also absorb some of the angular momentum of the photons and are endowed in this manner with a particular spin and charge.
So is the EM field a physical (as in, existent entity of some kind) thing which exists throughout all space, and ‘the field lines’, although not exactly as we depict them (like a perfect rope that connects to the electron) are existent in some manner? If there is nothing like them, why is there the need to evoke them? There needs to be an actual medium which distributes the force, EM radiation, electric and magnetic fields, as to avoid ‘spooky action at a distance’. The tricky problem is in physicality and reality, how many points of EM field is connected to an electron, and how come EM radiation is distributed or caused to exist from the acceleration of an electron in a 2d plane type of way as an outwardly expanding ring of wave, and not as an outwardly expanding 3d sphere of wave. What does this say about the medium of EM field?
My personal thought is that magnetism (2 magnets naturally drawing towards one another without physically touching one another) must be similar to the principles of displacement of medium as gravity. The big clue we have, is that the difference between magnets and non magnets, are the shared direction of spin the electrons are orientated in, in a magnet. I think it must have to do with the way in which the collective electrons distort the surrounding EM field, so that when N pole to N pole, and S pole to S pole configurations, the electrons collective spin is causing the fields to be created in a way similar way to two rowboats facing one another rowing backwards, placed front to front, will repel away from one another, (severely lacking analogy but worth something possibly). N pole to S pole, S pole to N pole, the disturbances of the surrounding field due to collective electron spinning of the field, compel the collective material to follow the past of least resistance, which results in the connecting of ends, in turn creating a larger magnet, adding to the collective of mutual spin. This is very similar to how gravity works, as the moon takes the path of least resistance as the earth has distorted the local medium of space, instead of the moon traveling past earths swirled distortion, it is compelled to ride its wake.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar
Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: Magnetic fields Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The idea of spooky action at a distance is based on the superstition that matter consists of discrete blocks of some hard substance on a background, or rather plateau of Medium, aethir, god-field. First of all this is rather silly in itself as this Medium begs the same question all over again. On what ground is this Medium predicated? What is the ground to the ground? Infinite regress, as with all sciences proposed finalities.
Second, the substance is EM and gravity. This is what particles are. Their manifestation is the force they represent.The coherence of these particles as force-standards and mediators is their being. What else is there to define, describe or identify them? Nothing.
In a similar vein, such people have asked:
‘What is the essential waterness behind water? Which non- water makes the water so watery?’
It does not occur that ‘things’ as we designate them contain within our notion of their being, their being and thus their nature, which includes their ground.
Science is always looking for groundless grounds that ground all the rest which is taken to be purely contingent and of no existential integrity. Its eazy enough to interpret this yearning; men who live without the faintest clue that they exist by their own nature, unaware that they have a nature, that they are what nature has now become. Men who see themselves as separate of the universe, looking in on it from the outside. With all due respect, autists and idiots.
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom
PostSubject: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 5:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Law of large numbers and attribution bias, in combination with what is almost always a huge and inevitably lack of information and data we might call totalizing, are able to call into question almost everything. These two ‘laws’ of scientific thought can only be refuted positively, by actual and adequate demonstration of proof by exhausting all other possibilities of explanation. Since astrology was brought up let’s apply the laws to it.
Astrological events that correspond to earthly or psychological events or patterns can either be seen as evidence for the truth of astrological significances or for the fact that we attribute meaning where we are looking for it, retroactively, and that there are statistically-speaking enough “significant events” in any scope of history to where we might imagine it is inevitable that certain patterns or alignments might emerge. Another big problem is that even if we note very consistent and surprising patterns these can still be “wished away” by appeal to the law of large numbers by saying that no matter the startlingness of the coincidence it’s statistically given that such coincidences would happen in a universe, world, and history as extensive and deep as ours. And further that we are attuned to attribute meaning to such coincidences far more than to the far more numerous moments we might point to where no such coincidence obtains.
I personally have suspended judgment on astrology and on most “supernatural” phenomena, I find it very difficult to state an opinion one way or another on these sort of things, because firstly I’ve had my own strange experiences but none approaching anything like giving me a sense of undeniable certainty about larger significances thereof, and also because philosophically-speaking our reason is able to accommodate either view: reason can either affirm or deny such things or the possibility or likelihood or unlikelihood of such things, there doesn’t seem to be any real ground or basis for bringing those two different kinds of views together to verify one and refute the other. At best it usually happens that some “philosopher” or scientist ends up arguing with a layman or religious person, each throwing out their own manner of psychological need and rationally-gravitating methodologies given the kinds of experiences and thought-patterns they’ve each been accustomed to-- not much objective, actual philosophy, or irrefutable data for either position is offered.
So anyway I’m just interested here in outlining the basic situation as it relates to all this. I see the only thing I can state with certainty is that either position can assert a strong certainty in its defense, and thus I can also be certain that the dilemma represents a true problem, one that cannot be resolved by merely retreating into our respective positions and our own “certainties”, no matter if these really are incontrovertibly certain to us.
Common ground is needed. This is very difficult to conceive, given the logical problems I mentioned here (attribution bias, law of large numbers, relative/psychological certainties, and a lack of overwhelmingly certain and objective data-experience).
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N
“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar
Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’ve often casually proven astrology to be true by predictions of what a chart would look like given some characteristics. I’ve done it in the other thread, conjuring up people I was sure to have oppositions. It’s not up for question for me any more than gravity is - but it sees at first equally inexplicable.
As a general but accurate rule, the only people who do not believe in astrology are those who haven’t seriously looked into it. I’ve seen the transformation in everyone I confronted with his chart. I’ve learned not to do this anymore as it is oppressive; but neither as I think Hume has a point that we don’t know for certain if the sun is going to come up, do I feel there is a point to doubt astrology when the empirical evidence is as overwhelming as it is for the gravitational constant.
All you have to do is measure it, but you do have to do that.
But indeed it is hard to explain this in terms of what we already know - but given that man still knows virtually nothing, it’s not surprising to me that the more we come to know, by the philosophical work of our friends and ourselves, the less strange or unlikely it becomes that we are products of more than just configurations of molecules on Earth, that we actually stand as in the center of a cosmos; that our being is far too subtle to not be influenced by the cosmic majesty of order, which was fleshed out as the argument for possibility itself.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar
Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I get it, I feel it even - it is ugly compared to philosophy - it shouldn’t go near it - it feels arbitrary.
But it’s one hard motherfucking fact of life we’re gonna have to get realistic about.
Not that it’s arbitrary, but that it is the opposite. Today, I have gone a long way to explaining it based on Parodites’ conception of the origin of the mind - as the re-anchoring of beings in the world, in coherence, in being, after the instincts had been ‘threshed’ by the self-analyzing being; the ‘empty mind’, or the chaotic firstborn-mind opened itself up to the cosmos as a gaping wound to receive any possible ointment of constancy. And this is still the way that shamans rip open the fabric of causality to the spontaneous dance of the soul under the sky in which the connection between the two is the actual being. This is why the lightning is the symbol of divinity - the coherence of our mind reflects the discharge of cosmic order into the vacuous proto-consciousness represented by the threshing floor, where the wills of the gods bundle to play with man.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Common ground. I think it is somewhere in chemistry. Astrology is alchemical, as is science. Lack of information and bias: does value ontology not predict them? Value. Science doesn’t seek value, it seems to me to give value depth, practicality. To apply huge maths to intuitions by relating evidences. This problem of not being able to achieve a totality points to that we have not allowed science to run wild, a separation between psychological need and independent, ideal potency which is not possible as absolute. Rather philosophy waits at the other end.
Yes, I think science’s lack is the obsession on absolute rather than specific. The principle is what concerns us.
Capable’s post seems simple, but each turning point has already been examined in other posts. Reason.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think I’m wrong about chemistry.
Common ground will not come that easy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
PostSubject: Re: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
About astrology, I will say that it is an opposite of supernatural. I is very much chemical, dealing with gravity and light… It could be said to be the effective result of that which any science aspires to as the highest degree of inter-relation.
The ultimate reference for animality. But this is all very anti-philosophical. I will need more space of space and of mind to get back to this. Let it be recorded that philosophy has not yet engulfed science.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar
Posts : 6665
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships
PostSubject: Re: Scientific methodology and its limits Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I wrote this post an hour or so ago on an empty stomach. I’ve eaten lentil soup with sausage now.
The status of the argument is as follows:
under scrutiny is astrology.
Note: I can’t allow any relation of this field with the term ‘supernatural’ or any other phenomena falling under that term, this is a specific field of inquiry and relates to fields that are vague only in the sense of having a vague understanding of it. It is ruthlessly exact and there is no room for doubt about the consistency of influences.
It is a culturally imposed superstition that leads people to doubt astrology. All serious cultures take it seriously, because you can not tae calculated risks without it and you can not build greatness without a lot of good fortune.
They called the farao’s the cosmic architects. It’s a field of knowledge that leads to long term power. If anything it’s the actual gift of Prometheus; fore-sight. That this is often deadly is the reason astrology is shunned, but for a philosopher this fear is not quite as well founded as it is for people with lesser inclinations to know themselves. In all western wars serious astrologers are consulted, and newspapers print ‘horoscopes’ that prescribe events based on sun signs, which is impossible, it is very clear why astrology is discredited, but it is not clear why it is working so well. Again; my best argument is the one I’ve given today - the moment that being had disconnected the instincts from each other, man stood erect; the moment man stood erect he was crowned by the heavens. As the earthly causal chain was broken, the celestial one was forged. The moment in between is the great possibility that Parodites’ philosophy describes and thereby opens up for ‘use’, and this moment underlies all consciousness. Astrology functions as a particular set of laws on the field of the daemonic formative process, but it is no less adequate to the phenomenology of human fate as physics is to the phenomenology of falling objects. This absurd consistency is why I make such a point of it. It’s not that it’s merely interesting, it’s rather that it is an entire field of exact knowledge that is disregarded with this mere disregarding as grounds for the conclusion that it isn’t proven to work. Yes, it is proven. It’s been proven to work a long, long time ago and never not been proven since. It’s only not been clear at all how it works. But the same goes for gravity, and a lot of things of which we only now that it works. The actual, historical reason man started disbelieving astrology is that he started believing in the Bible which forbids it. I’ sure took Newton a while to get people to believe that such exactitude of prediction could be possible, before he could get them to actually test out his laws. Now the effective terms of astrology are not less exact than the terms of mass, but our words for our own states of being are slightly less exact. Astrologers therefore prefer to work with the astrological names wherever they can. They are by far the most exact terms we have for “human being”.