New Buddha Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 (edited) @Andie post 124. Andie, In your own words, with out name dropping to try and impress us with how intelligent you are (it does the exact opposite), try and answer: If mathematics/science is not a tool used to achieve goals, then what is it? Edited December 15, 2014 by New Buddha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 Greg, 'The UV catastrophe was a real thermodynamics/physics problem circa 1880. This is because the standard equation which defined measured inputs of energy against outputs within a 'black box' will eventually go vertical: at a certain point on the function above UV you derive infinite energy. Planck 's measurement simply refuted this equation, or rather 'revised' it at the level of high energy inputs. His explanation was the 'quanta', or particles of energy that absorb radiation as they bump into each other, so to speak. This happened in 1900... AH Unless this guy is correct... http://youtu.be/3Hstum3U2zw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andie holland Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 Unless this guy is correct... http://youtu.be/3Hstum3U2zw Black Body Radiation was a term invented by Kirchoff as a means of either extending or limiting his particular law into the domain of high energy. Planck's solution demonstrated that Kirchoff's Law is limited to basic EE levels where, i understand, it's still rather fundamental. I'll be happy to watch Robitalle; again, however; I've really never heard anyone say that Kirchoff had a general theoretical validity to begin with. AH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andie holland Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 @Andie post 124. Andie, In your own words, with out name dropping to try and impress us with how intelligent you are (it does the exact opposite), try and answer: If mathematics/science is not a tool used to achieve goals, then what is it? My answer was clearly stated in #124. Very few of the contributions to theory had any practical goal in mind. Rather the y were just working on a problem. That thir solving of this problem took the form of the 'scientific method is what we call....'science'. Math, too, is math problem solving within the particular domain of what's considered a proof within the field. Citing names of particular scientists involves 'name dropping'--or using concrete examples to demonstrate a point. To this end, you're also free to drop a few names of real scientists or mathematicians whose theoretical contributions directly emerged from practical work. Indeed, they're many, but a minority number: * Cardano-- i, from the purposes of light diffusion within a cathedral ** Levy- his distribution, from solving mining disasters. AH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andie holland Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 Still microwaves are in the infrared band of the electromagnetic sprectrum, not the ultraviolet range. although Wikipedia does reference the musical band you mentioned. Is this supposed to show how or where Galt is allegedly wrong? Please refer to my #124. AH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 Please refer to my #124. AH I did. I did not find it very helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Buddha Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) From Andie #109 "Two points on Bohr, please: * His version of QM flowed from Mach, which in turn stemmed from Kant. We observe and measure only the phenomenal world. The neumenal remains hidden due to our sensory incapacities. These remarks were made in the ongoing debate with Einstein, who took a materialist view that what we observe is real. I would imagine that Rand sided with Einstein... From Andie #129 "Very few of the contributions to theory had any practical goal in mind." How does it follow that, on the one hand, you condemn Bohr's statement - which you believe to follow from the Kantian noumenal vs. phenomenal dichotomy - and on the other hand you insist that a theory vs. practical dichotomy exists relative to math/science and is perfectly acceptable? Edited December 16, 2014 by New Buddha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andie holland Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 From Andie #109 "Two points on Bohr, please: * His version of QM flowed from Mach, which in turn stemmed from Kant. We observe and measure only the phenomenal world. The neumenal remains hidden due to our sensory incapacities. These remarks were made in the ongoing debate with Einstein, who took a materialist view that what we observe is real. I would imagine that Rand sided with Einstein... From Andie #129 "Very few of the contributions to theory had any practical goal in mind." How does it follow that, on the one hand, you condemn Bohr's statement - which you believe to follow from the Kantian noumenal vs. phenomenal dichotomy - and on the other hand you insist that a theory vs. practical dichotomy exists relative to math/science and is perfectly acceptable? well, I'm not condemning Bohr because Kantianism is still with us, albeit in a minoritarian pov. Instrumentalism, for example, says that we simply extend our senses via said instruments; each extension implies a different theoretical paradigm with questions attached, However, the turning point really did come early in the history of QM, and i'm afraid that Bohr really missed the boat. When in 1927, his student, Heisenberg, began offering explanations for his equation, it became clear that 1) all of the phenomena were real and not observer- dependent and 2) the so-called 'uncertainty' ('indeterminate', actually!) is real, as well. To this end, the great Bohr/Einstein debates were a bit skewed: Bohr not accepting real-ness and Einstein rejecting probabilities. So basically what seems to have been established as received wisdom withing the ranks of my buds over in QM is a materialism whose outputs are probable. As for a theoretical/practical dichotomy, it's simply the observed reality of what people do. There are theorists and there are those who apply theory. Easily demonstrating the truth of this statement involves the sort grocery-listing that branded me a 'name-dropper just a few days ago. In other words, the issue is not one of first -philosophy formalism. Rather, simple, second-philosophy which would suggest that your two dichotomies are like apples to oranges. AH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Buddha Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) Andie, I TRULY appreciate your posting on this forum. Other than you, I have very little reason to keep checking in. But - while having read most of your posts - I have no understanding of why you are here. Would it be possible for you to post (in bullet format maybe?) what you agree with and disagree with regarding Objectivism? I should add, that my moniker is no mistake. I have some very real disagreements with basic tenants of Objectivism, and do not consider myself an Objectivist. What is right about Objectivism? What is wrong about Objectivism? In your own words preferably. Edit: Maybe start a new post? I can absolutely assure you, as someone who has been visiting this site for 5+ years, that the regulars would love someone who can challenge them with insight/critique of Objectivism. Edited December 17, 2014 by New Buddha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andie holland Posted December 18, 2014 Report Share Posted December 18, 2014 Andie, I TRULY appreciate your posting on this forum. Other than you, I have very little reason to keep checking in. But - while having read most of your posts - I have no understanding of why you are here. Would it be possible for you to post (in bullet format maybe?) what you agree with and disagree with regarding Objectivism? I should add, that my moniker is no mistake. I have some very real disagreements with basic tenants of Objectivism, and do not consider myself an Objectivist. What is right about Objectivism? What is wrong about Objectivism? In your own words preferably. Edit: Maybe start a new post? I can absolutely assure you, as someone who has been visiting this site for 5+ years, that the regulars would love someone who can challenge them with insight/critique of Objectivism. Mr Buddha, Rest assured that i appreciate your posts, too. I 'spoze that my explanation of why I post here starts with who I am. First, as a lit-chick doing a PhD on the origin of Spanish poetry, I absolutely adore Atlas and Fountainhead. This is because novels are about describing various types of people as a problematic. For example, in as much as don Quixote represents old heroes, Galt and Roark represent modern achievers. Suffice to say that Rand does this wonderfully. Standards of philosophy, however, involve not so much the artistic license of expression as the necessity to analyze and criticize. Here, I believe that Rand makes an important fundamental point that materialism means accepting the basic validity of both the sensory data and one's capacity to form concepts thereby. This means, for example, one must engage the Kantians (which I do, here in Salamanca, frequently!). So my disagreement lies only with her literary flourishes such as saying 'Kant is evil', rather than simply wrong. My reading of her theory of language yields up the remarkable insight found in academic philosophers such as Kripke--the famous 'causal reference'. This, of course, takes us directly back to Aristotle! In reading her, my only regret is that she failed to engage with those who, through hard questioning might have ironed out certain difficulties such as 'entity'. Which is fine, really, since she obviously concerned herself with more urgent matters such as government-inspired parasitism. Lastly, Randian twist to the Heisenberg issue. As I stated, Heisenberg declared that the results stemming form his equation were real, not mind-dependent in the Bohr-Mach-Kantian sort of way. To this end, Rand would have said, "Trust your senses and reason'. The effects of quanta are not caused by us, rather, they are objective. Moreover, a huge part of our modern capacity to reason is to have developed the math of probabilities". Her true legacy of Objectivism is just that. First, look at nature. next, look at yourself as part of nature. The rest is mere commentary. AH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.