If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Against the Mainstream
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91 (permalink)  
Old 13-June-2005, 11:26 PM
Halcyon Dayz's Avatar
Halcyon Dayz Halcyon Dayz is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NLD - Sol III
Posts: 1,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristophe
If Universe does not exist, => U does not exist, and since we all belong to U, then we don't exist, and so neither does this discussion.
I think therefore etc.

The love to play with words, don't they.
Maybe philosophy should be left to mathematicians.
__________________
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
  #92 (permalink)  
Old 13-June-2005, 11:59 PM
N C More's Avatar
N C More N C More is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 2,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
But then I would never have written my "Yes, Virginia ..." posts. And there are more to come! It's a good thing these were inspired on page 4 rather than page 14 or even (ugh!) 40!
Ok, not completely futile...I did like the "Yes, Virginia..." posts! But for the most part, much ado about nothing, IMO.
__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!
  #93 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2005, 12:24 AM
Maksutov's Avatar
Maksutov Maksutov is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fifth corner of the Earth
Posts: 16,731
Default Re: IS THE UNIVERSE IDEA JUSTIFIABLE?

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.A.F.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Word salad? Not at all.
You might not believe that, but I've never seen a better example than in your posts.
There are some posts by others that are darn close. For example remember certain posts in the Huygen[sic] thread and their various other incarnations? Darn good rabbit food if you ask me. And, just like rabbits, the post's contents were constantly recycled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.A.F.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
...I cannot leave well enough alone.
BOY...ain't that the truth.
Amen, Brother!
__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.
  #94 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2005, 11:37 AM
Richard J. Hanak Richard J. Hanak is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 135
Default

R.A.F. wrote:
Quote:
Yet your arguments are based on your own personal philosophy, not on any sort of scientific reasoning...and surprise, this is a science board.
R.A.F., to claim that my arguments are based on my personal philosophy does not disprove those arguments or show that they are irrelevant. Furthermore, since you have no knowledge of my own personal philosophy, you are in no position to claim that my arguments are based on my own personal philosophy.

Scientific reasoning is based on mathematical reasoning, which is based on geometrical reasoning, which is based on arithmetical reasoning, which is based on logical reasoning. Any of those kinds of reasoning can be appropriately used as a base for an argument pertaining to a scientific subject. The last in that list is the base for my arguments in this thread.
  #95 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2005, 12:05 PM
Fram's Avatar
Fram Fram is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buggenhout, Belgium
Posts: 3,140
Default

Logical reasoning can be based on axioms (like in mathematics), observations (like in science), and ideas (like in philosophy). There are more possibilities and often those are mixed, but this is a start.
To me, it looks like your logical reasoning is based on your ideas, i.e. your personal philosophy. It is not based (or not for the most part) on observations or axioms. You started about 'the universe idea', which stresses this point.
Of course, it could be that it is not your personal philosophy, perhaps you are just playing the devil's advocate or so, but that seems to me largely irrelevant. In that case, you are defending a personal philosophy, just not your personal philosophy.
There is nothing wrong with either of those, but I don't see why you deny it.
__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse
  #96 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2005, 01:29 PM
Kristophe's Avatar
Kristophe Kristophe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 989
Send a message via ICQ to Kristophe Send a message via MSN to Kristophe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Scientific reasoning is based on mathematical reasoning, which is based on geometrical reasoning, which is based on arithmetical reasoning, which is based on logical reasoning. Any of those kinds of reasoning can be appropriately used as a base for an argument pertaining to a scientific subject. The last in that list is the base for my arguments in this thread.
*ahem*
If Universe DNE, then U DNE, and you are a subset of U. Where are your m4d l0g1k 5k1llz on that one?
__________________
"The plan does not involve mayonaise."
"... I knew there was a catch."

You can't take the sky from me.
  #97 (permalink)  
Old 18-June-2005, 02:51 AM
Fortis Fortis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,152
Default

I suggested earlier
Quote:
We could start a new thread, "Is the Richard J. Hanak" idea justifiable?
There may have been a smiley at the end, but if "Richard J Hanak", whatever that is, can answer that, I'd be very interested.
  #98 (permalink)  
Old 18-June-2005, 04:42 AM
Celestial Mechanic's Avatar
Celestial Mechanic Celestial Mechanic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 3,891
Default

Yes Virginia, There Is a Universe. (Part Four--Moon in June)

Initially I thought that my arguments had taken care of this thread. Indeed there was no response to my three "Virginia" posts for 16 days. But ultimately Virginia came back one day to tell me of Jimmy K.'s latest outrages and of Richard J. Hanak's lengthy reply.

"OK Virginia, let's start with his arguments about classes and sets. They're particularly stinky!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Classes and sets are abstract ideas and exist only in the mind. All that can be attributed to a class or set is its rules of membership. An abstract class or set cannot have physical properties (density, entropy) or histories (BB, SS) attributed to it.
"That's wrong right off the bat. Can you think of a property every set has?"

Virginia though about it a moment, and then asked, "The number of elements in it?"

"Yes, every set has a cardinality, the number of elements in it, either zero or some finite number or possibly even infinitely many. Colloquially we consider the properties of the members to be the properties of the set. We can consider, for example, the set of all stars within 1000 light-years of Earth. Once we have this list we can ask how many stars are in this set, what is the total luminosity of the stars in this set, what percentage of stars in this set have spectral type G and so on. We can always use the locution 'the attributes of this set's elements' or 'the history of this set's elements' but everybody understands that this is what is meant by 'attributes of this set' and 'history of this set'."

"And sets don't even have to be homogeneous for us to assign meaningful attributes to it. I can define a set that consists of a lion, a witch, and a wardrobe. I can determine how many doors it has by counting the doors of the wardrobe."

"How many teeth does your set have?" Virginia catches on quickly!

"I could determine the total number of teeth by counting if only the lion and the witch will let me! RJH continues:"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Look what happens if we try to define a thing as a set. Let's take the moon as an example. We can begin with 'the moon is a set of atoms.' The earth and the sun are also sets of atoms, so our definition of the moon as a set is not sufficiently narrow. We could add another membership rule to define which atoms can be members of the moon set. Any way you try to define that membership you ultimately wind up with 'the moon is the set of atoms that constitute the moon.' Unfortunately a thing cannot be defined in terms of itself. In such a definition if we replace the word 'moon' wherever it occurs by 'the set of atoms that constitute the moon' we soon have 'the moon is the set of atoms that constitute the set of atoms that constitute the set of atoms that constitute the set of atoms ......' without end, and we can never attain a definition. (The 'fin' in 'definition' means 'end'.)
"I challenged him to define the Moon himself, and RJH continues with this:"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
In the quote CM refers to above, I tried to show the kind of problems that can arise if we try to define a real thing as a set or class. We have no such problems when real things are not defined as a set or class. Modern definition: The Moon is the Earth's natural satellite. Ancient definition: The Moon is the largest and brightest thing wever seen in the night sky.
"Only problem is, he hasn't defined the Earth, he hasn't defined satellite, and he hasn't defined what 'natural' means in the context of his definition.

"Now I know that words have to be defined in terms of other words, and ultimately there are going to be words that cannot be defined but whose meanings must be taken to be understood, but RJH does not extend this courtesy to me in the definition that I give later of the Universe.

"And even if we do accept RJH's definition of the Moon, it is still ultimately a collection of atoms and it has the attributes that it does by virtue of this fact. Because the Moon is a collection of atoms, it has a total mass and an inertia tensor, it has a history (its position at each moment of time), it has velocity, linear momentum and angular momentum. All of these are things that matter very much to me as a celestial mechanic. It has all of these things by virtue of being a collection of atoms. Now we could please RJH by always saying things like 'the collection of atoms that constitutes Earth's natural satellite has a total mass of 7.3483E+22 kg', but that would be pedantic."

To be continued...
__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.
  #99 (permalink)  
Old 18-June-2005, 04:45 AM
Celestial Mechanic's Avatar
Celestial Mechanic Celestial Mechanic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 3,891
Default

Yes Virginia, There Is a Universe. (Part Five--I Belong to Me)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
While we're at it, how do you define yourself? How do you know that you have properly defined yourself? How do you know that you are aware of properly defining yourself? How do you know that you have a recallable memory of being aware of properly defining yourself? When did you learn or put into your memory the awareness of a proper definition of yourself?

See, I can toss word-salad as well as any philosopher-chef!
Word salad? Not at all. The words are precisely arranged according to the rules of grammar into properly put questions. Perhaps CM will be surprised to find out that each of those questions is meaningful and answerable. However, since those questions are outside the intended scope of this thread and in the interest of brevity I will only answer the first question.
"The words may be precisely arranged according to the rules of grammar, but more to the point they are arranged and chosen in response to an earlier comment of RJH's not quoted here. The intent of asking the questions I did was to suggest how philosophy is one of the most wasteful of human activities, right up there with karaoke. Let's examine RJH's answer:"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
My self is the self that belongs to me. The self is a re-entrant neurological function of the brain. Because of that re-entrancy, the self is comparable to the type of computer programming function known as a self-recursive function. A self-recursive function can initiate multiple instances of itself.
"I shudder to even think of Richard J. Hanak initiating multiple instances of himself! There is a danger to defining oneself as a neurological function of the brain: that's not how the law sees it. RJH may not like it, but the law defines us as collections of atoms with certain inalienable rights. If something unfortunate happens to us that we no longer have re-entrant neurological functions capable of multiple initiations of ourselves then some other collection of atoms will have to exercise power of attorney over us. As the recent Terri Schiavo case proves, this is one of the places where politics and religion collide so we will not discuss it further.

"Besides, in the next paragraph I strike paydirt!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
The self is the awareness one has whether awake or dreaming.
"I'm not even going to touch that!" Virginia and I both had a good laugh over that one, and so should the reader.
To be continued...
__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.
  #100 (permalink)  
Old 18-June-2005, 04:47 AM
Celestial Mechanic's Avatar
Celestial Mechanic Celestial Mechanic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 3,891
Default

Yes Virginia, There Is a Universe. (Part Six--Justify Yourself)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
How do you propose to "Correct and make reasonable" the concept of universe? What benefits will accrue to us from "abandoning" the idea of the universe? If we "abandon" the idea of a universe and of said universe having properties and a history, we can also abandon any idea of asking about its origins. Is that part of your agenda? Why is the concept of a universe so offensive to you that you periodically start threads on this topic, not to mention write books about it?
The intent of this thread, as its title indicates, is to explore whether or not the universe idea is justifiable. If the intent were broadened to include all aspects of the universe idea, it would soon be too lengthy and unwieldy for a bulletin board thread. Therefore, I will not answer CM's questions in detail. I will, however, present my immediate observations about CM's questions.

If I could correct and make reasonable the concept of universe, then it would not have to be abandoned. Therefore we can, for the moment, skip questions of abandonment and go to CM's last question. My threads about tides, red shift, inertia, and centrifugal force were not motivated by any offensiveness of those ideas. The concept of universe is not offensive to me. I do not understand why CM assumes that it is.
"Maybe not offensive, but not justified, as the title of this thread indicates. Almost every one of the threads RJH started ultimately mentioned his book The Universe on Trial and/or had a link to a website he used to have."

"He didn't really answer any of your questions," Virginia noted.

"No, he didn't. He really does think that the concept of a universe is not justified. And if he is correct then it must be abandoned. Although he will not tell us in this thread or any other what he intends to replace that poor universe that he put on trial with. If one Googles on 'Richard J. Hanak' and looks at some of the pages, one will see as the subtitle to one of his books, 'The Return to Absolutivity'."

"Absolutivity? What is that?"

"Think about some of the other 'ivity' words that you know of."

"Creativity, activity, relativity?"

"Yes, Virginia, relativity. 'Absolutivity' seems to be a made-up word meant to stand in opposition to relativity. And if you look through this threads you will see many, many misconceptions about physics that our comments and links have not been able to dispel. But there is still hope!"
To be continued...
__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.
  #101 (permalink)  
Old 18-June-2005, 04:51 AM
Celestial Mechanic's Avatar
Celestial Mechanic Celestial Mechanic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 3,891
Default

Yes Virginia, There Is a Universe. (Part Seven--The Universe You Cannot Leave Behind)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
Here's a definition of universe that even Forrest Gump could understand: "The universe is that which you cannot leave."
So the universe is that which I cannot leave is it? Let's see, what is it that I cannot leave? I cannot leave myself. I cannot leave my true love. I cannot leave well enough alone. I'll bet if CM asked Forrest Gump what he cannot leave, Forrest would answer "Well, Mama said I cannot leave without saying goodbye."
"More dictionary games. The particular meaning of 'leave' that was meant was 'to exit'."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Of course I know that was not what CM meant. CM must have meant that which I myself cannot leave. If I were a felon in a prison, had never heard of the word 'universe' and looked it up in CM's dictionary, I would think that the universe was the prison. But what about my trying to leave something on a cosmological scale? It would take so long for me to leavethe local galaxy that I would be dead long before that. My dead body could conceivably make it out of the local galaxy, but my dead body is not the same as myself. So I myself could not leave the local galaxy. Does that make the local galaxy the universe?
"Still more dictionary games. Virginia, have you read any of Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?"

"Yes, they're hilarious!"

"Do you remember Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged, the being accidentally given immortality who sets out to insult every creature in the universe in alphabetical order?"

"Yes."

"Well, let's imagine that we could arrange for RJH to have an 'unfortunate accident with an irrational particle accelerator, a liquid lunch and a pair of rubber bands' similar to Wowbagger's. After suffering his 'long dark teatime of the soul' he departs in a starship capable of lasting practically forever. So RJH the Infinitely Prolonged and the self that belongs to himself are able to leave the galaxy, the local cluster of galaxies, the supercluster of galaxies, the supercluster of superclusters, the supercluster of superclusters of superclusters, the n-th iteration of that and then what?"

Virginia was lost in thought.

"If RJH is right he exits from one level of structure only to find himself in a larger structure. If there is a largest structure he emerges into the space between these largest structures and has only the choice of entering one of these structures or staying outside of all of them."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
If Forrest Gump understood the intent of CM's definition and were to ask CM why he couldn't leave the universe, I think CM couldn't answer him without redefining the universe.
"Can you answer it for me? Why can't Forrest Gump leave the universe?"

Virginia needed only a moment, "Because there's nowhere else to go?"

"That's it. Poor RJH the Infinitely Prolonged. Aboard a mighty starship and nowhere to go!"
To be continued...
__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.
  #102 (permalink)  
Old 18-June-2005, 02:16 PM
Fortis Fortis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,152
Default

=D>
  #103 (permalink)  
Old 18-June-2005, 04:51 PM
Kristophe's Avatar
Kristophe Kristophe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 989
Send a message via ICQ to Kristophe Send a message via MSN to Kristophe
Default

I've proposed this idea twice now, without invoking a reply from our resident philosopher and logitician, so let me rephrase it:

The Univese is the set of all things that can physically interact through the exchange of force carrying particles, and the medium through which these particles propagate.

*taps his foot patiently*
__________________
"The plan does not involve mayonaise."
"... I knew there was a catch."

You can't take the sky from me.
  #104 (permalink)  
Old 18-June-2005, 05:07 PM
N C More's Avatar
N C More N C More is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 2,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristophe
The Univese is the set of all things that can physically interact through the exchange of force carrying particles, and the medium through which these particles propagate.

*taps his foot patiently*
Works for me. I say we all conclude that we are in the Universe and RJH can be *somewhere else* if that makes him happy!
__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!
  #105 (permalink)  
Old 18-June-2005, 05:21 PM
Kristophe's Avatar
Kristophe Kristophe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 989
Send a message via ICQ to Kristophe Send a message via MSN to Kristophe
Default

Not a bad idea. I don't need any bottled brains in my pantry.
__________________
"The plan does not involve mayonaise."
"... I knew there was a catch."

You can't take the sky from me.
  #106 (permalink)  
Old 19-June-2005, 04:31 AM
Celestial Mechanic's Avatar
Celestial Mechanic Celestial Mechanic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 3,891
Default

Yes Virginia, There Is a Universe. (Part Eight--My Mother the Car)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
It is easy to conceive of an automobile as an assemblage of parts associated together as one thing. One thinks in terms of an engine, frame, suspension, wheels, body, etc. It would be unwieldy and perhaps impossible to think of an automobile as an assemblage of protons, neutrons, and electrons. It would be equally impossible to reason about the universe as an assemblage of atoms, or stars.
"Why not? This, Virginia, is the fatal flaw in RJH's argument. It may be 'unwieldy' to think of the uiverse as a collection of protons, neutrons, and electrons' but we can. And that is where the answer lies.
There is a flaw in my above quoted argument, but it is not fatal. It is a language flaw in the phrase "think of an automobile." It should have been written as "think about an automobile" to have the same sense as "reason about the universe" in the next sentence.

Thinking of something and thinking about something are not the same thing. In the 'of' case, 'think' is a transitive verb meaning to have in mind, to hold in one's opinion, to believe, etc. In the 'about' case, 'think' is an intransitive verb meaning to bring the intellectual capacities into play, to reason, to use the mind for arriving at conclusion.
"Endless dictionary games. We could just as easily talk of an automobile or talk about an automobile or talk to an automobile or if you are Jerry Van Dyke, talk with an automobile."

"Don't you mean Dick Van Dyke?" Virginia asked.

"Jerry Van Dyke is Dick's brother and in 1964 he starred in a television show called My Mother the Car. The situation was this: his late mother was reincarnated as an antique automobile that could speak to him and only to him (voice of Ann Southern). Consequently he spent a lot of time in the garage talking with her. Think Mr. Ed with a car instead of a horse."

"How horrible!"

"Yes Virginia, television wasn't any better back then either. Don't let anyone try to fool you. But let's get back to the topic."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
I do not think that anyone can reason about an automobile if it is considered to be merely a collection of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. How could we explain that some of the automobile's protons, neutrons, and electrons produce light, that some produce sounds, and some provide traction? The properties of an automobile cannot be explained from the fact that it consists of sub-atomic particles. Automobile properties can only be understood in terms of its larger scale components such as engine, frame, transmission, tires, steering assembly, headlights, etc. One need not know that bolts and nuts hold the engine to the frame in order to understand or reason about an automobile. One only needs to know about those bolts and nuts if one wants to understand or reason about the engine mounting.
"Nevertheless, the engine, frame, transmission, tires, etc., have the properties they do because they are made of certain materials and their interactions, these materials have certain properties because of the atoms that they are made of and their interactions, the atoms have certain properties because of the sub-atomic particles and their interactions. It is not 'turtles all the way down' even if it is superclusters all the way up. Study galaxies, stars, atoms, nuclei, and even automobiles at whatever level you like, but always remember that underneath it all is a huge quantity of a small number of particles and their interactions. It is at that level that the way to defining the universe lies. In the next two paragraphs he almost agrees with me."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
One can think of the universe in any way one wishes: as that which one cannot leave, as everywhere, as the totality of all that exists, as the whole of existence, etc. However, to think about the universe, to reason about the universe, as a particular kind of collection ignores the fact that the universe is many different kinds of collections. It is a collection of sub-nuclear particles, it is a collection of atoms, it is a collection of stars and dust, it is a collection of galaxies, it is a collection of galaxy clusters, etc. The universe, then, is also a collection of collections. That last definition of the universe is the definition of a set or class rather than the definition of a physical thing.

Reasoning about sub-nuclear particles explains the properties of atoms. Reasoning about atoms explains the properties of stars and dust. Reasoning about stars and dust explains the properties of galaxies. One explains the properties of a cosmological thing by reasoning about the largest aggregates of which it is composed. If the universe is a physical object, why, unlike atoms, stars, or galaxies, should its properties be explainable by reasoning about aggregates that are not the largest of which it is composed?
"At the nuclear level the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions have to be taken into account in explaining the properties of nuclei. Electromagnetic and gravitational interactions must be taken into account for the remaining levels up to stars. But once we reach the level of galaxies only gravitational interactions remain. And gravity is mostly indifferent to the properties of the things it interacts with. It doesn't matter if an automobile has cheap plastic seat covers or Corinthian leather (wish I could do a good Ricardo Montalban impression!), it will drop the same way off a cliff (allowing for aerodynamics, of course). At the largest levels, however many there are, only gravity matters, contrary to the claims of the Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe followers.

"I have no need of knowledge about the largest (if any) structures in the universe to reason about it as a whole. All I need is the densities of matter and radiation (which could be zero), the signature of the curvature (+1 for closed, 0 for flat, -1 for open), and possibly the cosmological constant."
To be continued...

Note: While this dialog is fictional, there really was a TV show entitled My Mother the Car. I am not making this up!
__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.