CHATPRIVACYDONATELOGINREGISTER
DMT-Nexus
FAQWIKIHEALTH & SAFETYARTATTITUDEACTIVE TOPICS
PREV1234NEXT
What causes a wave to collapse into matter? Options
 
Jees
#21 Posted : 5/25/2020 10:36:06 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 3727
Joined: 28-Jun-2012
Last visit: 10-May-2021
xss27 wrote:
...All these paradoxes are nothing magical or mystical, they are failures of a paradigm that is built out of mathematical speculations that are simply not rooted in reality. ..
So this is a hoax?
 

Psychedelic news, articles, interviews and art from the DMT-Nexus and other sources.
 
xss27
#22 Posted : 5/26/2020 12:17:26 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 286
Joined: 07-Jul-2018
Last visit: 01-Nov-2020
Location: Londinium
Jees wrote:
xss27 wrote:
...All these paradoxes are nothing magical or mystical, they are failures of a paradigm that is built out of mathematical speculations that are simply not rooted in reality. ..
So this is a hoax?


Absolutely.

Quantum computing is nothing more than a bottomless money pit with a fancy name. It's even more pointless than the hot fusion research that has been going on for decades and is always "almost there!". These are futuristic non-productive projects the scientific community is engaged with which are ultimately non-solvable but keep many people employed and dollars flowing endlessly. Neither are going to yield anything worth a damn because they're both based on incorrect assumptions (mathematical speculations) about how reality works - particles, and solar theory - that ultimately all stems back to Einstein's relativity and the divergence away from classical physics principles.

After reading all the wide eyed geek propaganda in the article, re-read the last paragraph again. Quantum computers are irrelevant to solving real world computational problems. Just because they slapped the word 'Quantum' on to their enterprise doesn't mean anything. It's even more misleading than Elon Musk stealing the surname of one of the greatest inventors of all time and using it for his company brand.
 
Jees
#23 Posted : 5/26/2020 2:20:47 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 3727
Joined: 28-Jun-2012
Last visit: 10-May-2021
xss27 wrote:
...Al Neither are going to yield anything worth a damn because they're both based on incorrect assumptions (mathematical speculations) about how reality works - particles, and solar theory - that ultimately all stems back to Einstein's relativity and the divergence away from classical physics principles...

Mind that Einstein (with the help of his relativity) was the hardest opponent against the quantum theory principles. He and Niels Bohr were on an intelectual war. Bohr won leaving Einstein depleted of arguments.
Albert E was a hard advocate of 'classic mechanics' over quantum spooks, but beware that to make a case like that he had to introduce spooks himself (hidden variable theory). It might feel contradicting that Einstein defended classic mechanics but he did that with all he could to disprove 'quantum', he near hated it, "God does not play dice."

Just saying that folding back on classic mechanics has it's very own spooky sides when looking closer. Not believing in spooky effects as an argument in it's own right doesn't help one escaping from it by default. "It's only waves" is void of spook? I beg to differ.

About quantum computers I stay on the fence for more substantial indicators.

Thank you for your thoughts, no pun intended.

 
dragonrider
#24 Posted : 5/26/2020 7:58:56 AM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator

Posts: 2279
Joined: 09-Jul-2016
Last visit: 10-May-2021
Location: spacetime
xss27 wrote:
I've just watched the video. I'm not going to lie or bother fluffing up a response.. I think quantum mechanics is a load of bullshit quite frankly. The notion of distinct particles and probability functions is in my opinion mathematical drivel conjured up by theorists who have not really conducted empirical experimentation, and it's part of a whole raft of metaphysical gibberish that was spawned at the beginning of the 20th century to fill the gaping holes in the scientific paradigm created when Einstein imagined up his nonsensical theory of relativity.

All these paradoxes are nothing magical or mystical, they are failures of a paradigm that is built out of mathematical speculations that are simply not rooted in reality. They are also extremely handy for creating unsolvable problems for the scientific community, meaning they can draw funding and continue research without worrying about short-circuiting their careers or institutions by actually disproving or discovering something new.

Classical physics is where it's at, not quantum mechanics or relativity.

Speed of light=incompatible with classical physics.
 
xss27
#25 Posted : 5/26/2020 11:53:03 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 286
Joined: 07-Jul-2018
Last visit: 01-Nov-2020
Location: Londinium
dragonrider wrote:
Speed of light=incompatible with classical physics.


All this comes back to Einstein and his funky thought experiment nonsense and his attempts to make sense of Maxwell's equations. And all Einstein really achieved was to divert attention away from the concept of the Aether for a short period of time, a concept which Maxwell held when committing his work, a concept Einstein himself later admitted was a necessity anyway. There is nothing incompatible with classical physics and the speed of light, again this conclusion only arises out of misunderstanding and lack of awareness of all the factors - Maxwell himself did not know all the factors. But rather than go back and examine our erroneous thinking we're now stuck with Einstein's ridiculous ideas that defy common sense and logic.

The crux of the issue is Einstein did not do sufficient experimentation outside of his head.

I'm far more inclined to trust the words of the man who practically invented the modern world and actually made tangible discoveries using only wood, brass and glass - Tesla's thoughts on Einstein's concepts were crystal clear.

As for Quantum Computing, Jees, just read around a bit on it. It's a gravy train that is going nowhere fast.
 
dragonrider
#26 Posted : 5/26/2020 12:12:06 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator

Posts: 2279
Joined: 09-Jul-2016
Last visit: 10-May-2021
Location: spacetime
xss27 wrote:
dragonrider wrote:
Speed of light=incompatible with classical physics.


All this comes back to Einstein and his funky thought experiment nonsense and his attempts to make sense of Maxwell's equations. And all Einstein really achieved was to divert attention away from the concept of the Aether for a short period of time, a concept which Maxwell held when committing his work, a concept Einstein himself later admitted was a necessity anyway. There is nothing incompatible with classical physics and the speed of light, again this conclusion only arises out of misunderstanding and lack of awareness of all the factors - Maxwell himself did not know all the factors. But rather than go back and examine our erroneous thinking we're now stuck with Einstein's ridiculous ideas that defy common sense and logic.

The crux of the issue is Einstein did not do sufficient experimentation outside of his head.

I'm far more inclined to trust the words of the man who practically invented the modern world and actually made tangible discoveries using only wood, brass and glass - Tesla's thoughts on Einstein's concepts were crystal clear.

As for Quantum Computing, Jees, just read around a bit on it. It's a gravy train that is going nowhere fast.

But repeated experiments have shown that tne speed of light is always the same for any observer, regardless of the movements of the observer and lightsource in relation to eachother. Einstein did not come up with that. This was known before einstein started all these "funky thought experiments".

And that is just simply incompatible with newtonian physics, no matter how you spin it.
 
dragonrider
#27 Posted : 5/26/2020 10:30:04 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator

Posts: 2279
Joined: 09-Jul-2016
Last visit: 10-May-2021
Location: spacetime
I would be interested btw, if you also reject old quantum theory, because it is somewhere in between classic mechanics and modern quantum mechanics.

Einstein made some major contributions to old quantum theory, that have little to nothing to do with relativity. That is actually what got him his first nobelprize.

I wonder if you think he should have just sticked to old quantum theory, or whether he was already out of touch with empirical science.

The question whether something can be integrated in empirical science is actually not as straightforward as it may seem at first. The subject of philosophy maybe even, rather than of science itself.
 
xss27
#28 Posted : 5/26/2020 10:54:43 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 286
Joined: 07-Jul-2018
Last visit: 01-Nov-2020
Location: Londinium
dragonrider wrote:
But repeated experiments have shown that tne speed of light is always the same for any observer, regardless of the movements of the observer and lightsource in relation to eachother. Einstein did not come up with that. This was known before einstein started all these "funky thought experiments".


What about Sagnacs experiment that demonstrated this not to be the case. The Sagnac Effect has to be accounted for in the GPS system.

dragonrider wrote:
And that is just simply incompatible with newtonian physics, no matter how you spin it.


Einstein's ideas about light are just complete horseshit. They offend common sense and clarity of thinking, and can only be appreciated by cloaking it in mathematical rambling.
 
dragonrider
#29 Posted : 5/26/2020 11:16:21 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator

Posts: 2279
Joined: 09-Jul-2016
Last visit: 10-May-2021
Location: spacetime
xss27 wrote:
Einstein's ideas about light are just complete horseshit. They offend common sense and clarity of thinking, and can only be appreciated by cloaking it in mathematical rambling.

Including the ideas that got him his first nobelprize?
 
Exitwound
#30 Posted : 5/27/2020 7:37:49 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 547
Joined: 24-Dec-2017
Last visit: 11-May-2021
xss27 wrote:

The crux of the issue is Einstein did not do sufficient experimentation outside of his head.


Just curious: how would you describe your level of education in Physics?

xss27 wrote:

Einstein's ideas about light are just complete horseshit. They offend common sense and clarity of thinking, and can only be appreciated by cloaking it in mathematical rambling.


You are benefitting from his and other madmen's mathematical ramblings daily, by using computer, cell phone and other amazing things, don't be so harsh on old Albert Very happy
 
dragonrider
#31 Posted : 5/27/2020 2:42:25 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator

Posts: 2279
Joined: 09-Jul-2016
Last visit: 10-May-2021
Location: spacetime
xss27 wrote:
dragonrider wrote:
But repeated experiments have shown that tne speed of light is always the same for any observer, regardless of the movements of the observer and lightsource in relation to eachother. Einstein did not come up with that. This was known before einstein started all these "funky thought experiments".


What about Sagnacs experiment that demonstrated this not to be the case. The Sagnac Effect has to be accounted for in the GPS system.

dragonrider wrote:
And that is just simply incompatible with newtonian physics, no matter how you spin it.


Einstein's ideas about light are just complete horseshit. They offend common sense and clarity of thinking, and can only be appreciated by cloaking it in mathematical rambling.

Sagnacs experiment does not contradict relativity. Relativity predicts the exact same outcome.

But from a philosophical point of view, i am realy interested to hear where exactly you think einstein went of the rails.
Is it when he came up with relativity, or before that moment?
 
xss27
#32 Posted : 5/28/2020 11:20:13 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 286
Joined: 07-Jul-2018
Last visit: 01-Nov-2020
Location: Londinium
dragonrider wrote:
Including the ideas that got him his first nobelprize?


Yes. His photoelectric effect is based on the assumption that light is or has discrete energy packet (particle) type properties. Whilst it is useful for explaining things and can make maths fit, can help us make sense of things, at its root it is an intellectual concept not a reality. The photoelectric effect is a real mechanism, photons are an imaginary concoction.

Exitwound wrote:
Just curious: how would you describe your level of education in Physics?


I wouldn't be able to pass any of the exams I had to sit back in secondary school, and not just physics haha. The high level mathematics I don't understand as I didn't take that or a university degree requiring it.

But I understand enough and have enough intelligence to wrap my head around physics concepts, providing the concepts can be communicated without that high level mathematics. All physics concepts should be decipherable without having to resort to mathematical cloaking. If it can't be explained simply then it is most probably horseshit.

When it comes to Einstein's postulations the condensed concepts absolutely defy logic and common sense.

Exitwound wrote:
You are benefitting from his and other madmen's mathematical ramblings daily, by using computer, cell phone and other amazing things, don't be so harsh on old Albert


Rubbish. Einstein didn't actually invent or discover anything. All he did was speculate mathematically. Anyone can fucking speculate without having to demonstrably prove anything, just because he cloaked his metaphysical speculations in mathematics that are beyond the average mans intelligence doesn't make him a genius at all. Especially when it's obvious he was wrong about so much, which is unsurprising given he didn't actually do any fucking experiments or empirical research!

The reverence of Einstein is nothing more than cult behavior and completely unjustified. Ironically it is advocates of Nikola Tesla who get labelled as cult followers. Yet, it was Tesla who gave birth to the modern world we enjoy today thanks to his AC inventions that made powerful industry and widespread electricity possible, without which we would not have the technologies you mentioned because there would be no foundation on which to build the enterprises that gave birth to those technologies!

If you're going to pick a champion, pick the justified one for christ sake. Tesla's inventing record is unsurpassed and that's only taking into account the publicly available patents and inventions, and not including the technology that the US government buried when they seized all his materials at his death.

Einstein's work is a 'best fit'. But that doesn't mean much really if it's not actually connected to reality, to the actual truth of how things are. And no man has ever reached truth by speculation alone, it has always required experimentation and effort.

dragonrider wrote:
Sagnacs experiment does not contradict relativity. Relativity predicts the exact same outcome.


Sagnacs experiment is in relation to special relativity, not general relativity; specifically how light operates. I hadn't heard of the experiment until the other day in fact. Unsurprising really because it took all of 10 seconds to look at it and see it absolutely destroys Einstein's postulations about light, so it's no wonder why I wasn't taught about it, why it is not often mentioned and has been dubbed an mere 'effect' when in actuality it demonstrates special relativity is incorrect.

I've spent the last couple of days reading all I can find about it and the justification (excuse) for why it doesn't disprove SR is the proponents basically hinge their devotion to SR on an interpretation of inertial frames of reference;

All of it hinges back to the chief neurosis of science really, which goes right back to Newton's work too, which is that you can dissect a piece of a system in order to comprehend the whole. This is an assumption, a gamble, because it is entirely possible that 'reality' is one dynamic movement. Therefore whilst you can take parts and gain useful understandings it only works up until a point, and that point is when it comes to the universal scale (or atomic scale). Your resolution of insight diminishes and without direct experimentation you are shooting in the dark.

This is exactly what has happened in the 20th century, and it is why both particle physics and cosmology is in crisis. It has speculated itself into a corner and is speaking a deranged fantasy that has no connection to reality anymore. At the largest scale and at the smallest scale, our theories are bereft of logic and rationality. Tesla said it himself at the start of the 20th century. Our science paradigm is now run by mathematicians, not physicists.

dragonrider wrote:
But from a philosophical point of view, i am really interested to hear where exactly you think Einstein went of the rails. Is it when he came up with relativity, or before that moment?


As I described above, Einstein is a mathematical speculator and not an experimenter or inventor. It's fine to speculate, speculation is healthy. But it should not form the basis of discovery, let alone form the tenet of an entire paradigm of science. Discovery happens through innovation and experimentation.. actual physics.

The encapsulation of light as a particle and his SR theory regarding light were chief points of error in his thinking. The former due to the bias of atomism in his thinking as mentioned above (you can't separate a dynamic motion into parts to discern truth of the whole), the latter due to the simple fact that he didn't do any tangible experiments to probe and test the actuality of things, hence why Sagnac's experiment rubbished SR.

"Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible – But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.” - Nikola Tesla, speaking about Einstein's relativity.

Tesla understood things far better than Einstein, because he experimented directly using physics and not solely with mathematics.
 
Exitwound
#33 Posted : 5/29/2020 10:52:38 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 547
Joined: 24-Dec-2017
Last visit: 11-May-2021
Quote:

Rubbish. Einstein didn't actually invent or discover anything. All he did was speculate mathematically. Anyone can fucking speculate without having to demonstrably prove anything, just because he cloaked his metaphysical speculations in mathematics that are beyond the average mans intelligence doesn't make him a genius at all. Especially when it's obvious he was wrong about so much, which is unsurprising given he didn't actually do any fucking experiments or empirical research!


There is general split in the physicist camp between experimentators and theorists, they each do their own part of work. Any theory is of course just a theory, no matter how beautiful and logical, until proven to be true to atleast a certain degree or under certain conditions. You can be great theorist or great empiricist, but probably not both at the same time, because it requires different mind and skill sets.

Most of current "big" physical theories regarding cosmology are outrunning our current experimentation capabilities by centuries if not millenia. For example there are certain limit on how much energy output we can achieve with our current capabilities as civilization, good example is Large Hadron Collider. If I remember correctly, to reach substantially next level of energies in colliding particles, you will need to build particle accelerator which is comparable to size of Earth's orbit, which we can't do now.

My point is (that's why I asked about your Physics education), you might be perceiving Einstein from public view, where he is idolized and worshipped, which public loves to do in general with popular historical figures, without going into details "why?" and "was it really as they say?". In scientific circles, Einstein is regarded with big respect and his theories became the ground for many breakthrough inventions (GPS, photoelectricity comes to mind first) and in general are viewed as something that played big part in bringing scientific progress further to the point of now.

Progress is always as this: nobody has yet invented Theory of Everything, thought we are working on it, so any theory which is not Theory of Everything, bound to have flaws and boundaries where it is applicable. But this is not a problem, we have survived for quite a long before Newton and his theory was thought to be "the thing" at the time and it is still applicable and used in many thing in daily life, but it doesn't answer all question. Then came modern scientists like Einstein with even crazier theories which are also not perfect and are applicable to certain conditions and under certain assumptions, but they produce real results. So I don't think you should be unhapppy with the man. On the contrary, I think he wouldn't like very much people "idolizing" him, after all he was just like you and me, just a human.
 
xss27
#34 Posted : 5/29/2020 11:53:55 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 286
Joined: 07-Jul-2018
Last visit: 01-Nov-2020
Location: Londinium
I'm sure he would be as disappointed and dismayed as I am that his theories and image have been elevated to canon that can no longer be disputed. Likewise Tesla would probably feel the same and be saddened at what the world has done with his legacy of innovation.

His theories are a good fit, mathematically, and that's a fair enough point to make. I have no issue with the fact that they appear at surface level to explain how physical phenomena operate if it helps us push things along, but we've stalled. There really hasn't been much progress over the past 100 years when you compare the innovation and discoveries that were being made in the 19th century and up until the first two decades of the 20th. It's all been tinkering and polishing the existing technology and theory since, and it shows. We now have particle physics which is a mess and just a never ending money pit for career scientists, and cosmological theories that can't be tested which defy logic (e.g. black holes) and in some cases other established physics principles (e.g. neutron stars).

Something has clearly gone wrong, we've made a wrong turn, and I believe it was around the beginning of the 20th century when the aether was discarded as a concept in favor of abstract space-time geometry. Einstein said himself that the aether was a necessity in fact. I still disagree with the assertion that relativity actually produces anything, as it demonstrates the mathematical feasibility of something and not innovating that particular invention in itself.
 
xss27
#35 Posted : 5/29/2020 12:13:36 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 286
Joined: 07-Jul-2018
Last visit: 01-Nov-2020
Location: Londinium
I just found this article which is relevant to the discussion and your thread about Wolframm's new physics theory. She is saying pretty much what I stated in these discussions except her timeframe for the stalling of physics only goes back to 1970. She makes a good point though, science needs to find new ways of operating.. it has become stagnant in itself because it refuses to examine and self-reflect, and it has a neurosis and bias that really need to be examined. This was sort of the point I was beginning to unpack in the threads, that science is dominated by this speculative mathematical overly 'geeky' type of linear thinking. Science really could use the female touch to calm it down and centre itself, to get back on track.

Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

Quote:
In the foundations of physics, we have not seen progress since the mid 1970s when the standard model of particle physics was completed. Ever since then, the theories we use to describe observations have remained unchanged. Sure, some aspects of these theories have only been experimentally confirmed later. The last to-be-confirmed particle was the Higgs-boson, predicted in the 1960s, measured in 2012. But all shortcomings of these theories – the lacking quantization of gravity, dark matter, the quantum measurement problem, and more – have been known for more than 80 years. And they are as unsolved today as they were then.


Quote:
Instead of examining the way that they propose hypotheses and revising their methods, theoretical physicists have developed a habit of putting forward entirely baseless speculations. Over and over again I have heard them justifying their mindless production of mathematical fiction as “healthy speculation” – entirely ignoring that this type of speculation has demonstrably not worked for decades and continues to not work. There is nothing healthy about this. It’s sick science. And, embarrassingly enough, that’s plain to see for everyone who does not work in the field.


She's also bang on about the money involved. Look back at the era I keep referring to. All they had was metal, wood, and glass. Tesla and others innovated so much with so little, and now we need billion dollar experiments that only a few elect few can operate or even understand? At best that means money now controls science, at worst it's a conspiracy to keep the little man from doing any discovery of his own. It really does feel like science has been sucked up into the clutches of global power, and out of the hands of the ordinary person.

 
Exitwound
#36 Posted : 5/29/2020 12:32:55 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 547
Joined: 24-Dec-2017
Last visit: 11-May-2021
I see your point, but consider that science is typically gradual grinding effort, sometimes sprinkled with breakthroughs (scientificSmile). Gradual grinding effort usually brings results, but breakthroughs are more or less unpredictable and bring even greater results. As we go deeper into the inner workings of nature, it becomes much harder to experiment on a progressivelly smaller or bigger scale of things.

I think it was just "easier" to find unstaked patch of land in the "Country Of Undiscovered Phenomena", that's why the ones who could and dared to do so in 19th century and before, had a lot of "unknowns" to play and experiment with. There is also nothing wrong with polishing and going deeper into existing theories, because it's like science works in general: Your scientific giants, always stand on the shoulders of other giants who were before them. Just like Einstein's works base on mathematical apparatus invented before him, and other works are based on Einstein's work and so on and so on.

Why dismiss great discoveries in late 20th century or in our days? Semiconductors come to mind as one great discovery of more or less our times, and there are many more.

Anyways, I see it's just a matter of different opinons between us on this subject. I look slightly more optimistically on this and don't think we took a wrong turn. I think we are still there and there is more scientific work volume done every day than ever, in fields even unimaginable and non-existent in 19th century.

For example look at Stephen Wolfram's recent publishings, if this ain't potentially groundbreaking theory, then I don't know what is Smile
 
Jees
#37 Posted : 5/29/2020 12:42:31 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 3727
Joined: 28-Jun-2012
Last visit: 10-May-2021
Exitwound wrote:
...nobody has yet invented Theory of Everything...
Indeed, neither did Tesla. Anyone who's trying hard with sincere intentions should be respected even just for trying alone, a lot of intelligence works as per trial and error as a given on both the pragmatic and theoretic. What drives xss27 to repeatedly shoot foul language?
 
xss27
#38 Posted : 5/29/2020 12:58:29 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 286
Joined: 07-Jul-2018
Last visit: 01-Nov-2020
Location: Londinium
Jees wrote:
What drives xss27 to repeatedly shoot foul language?


Why not? It's frustrating when you can see someone making the same mistake over and over, when they refuse to acknowledge they may even be making a mistake. That someone is the scientific paradigm of the past 100 years. It needs profanity to draw a bit of attention to the issue.

It also drives me up the wall because it seems so apparent despite myself being an outsider, a nobody. We're wasting time, money, and most importantly the energy of our greatest minds on deadend speculations that are ultimately doomed to oblivion.
 
dragonrider
#39 Posted : 5/29/2020 1:34:11 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator

Posts: 2279
Joined: 09-Jul-2016
Last visit: 10-May-2021
Location: spacetime
But the early work of einstein is being used everyday in a lot of technology.
The photoelectric effect has been demonstrated to exist countless times, and stimulated emission even more, because it is the core principle of the laser: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

I don't think truly holistic science is possible. You are always working from a certain perspective.

The only test there is, for whether we are looking from the right angle is, results. Technological progress, getting things right, being able to make accurate predictions.

Just like newtonian physics was proven wrong by einstein, i am sure one day someone will prove einstein wrong with another theory. Newton was 99% right. Einstein 99.9%. But we will never get to 100%.
 
dragonrider
#40 Posted : 5/29/2020 2:51:27 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator

Posts: 2279
Joined: 09-Jul-2016
Last visit: 10-May-2021
Location: spacetime
I would like to add that this is actually a very ancient philosophical debate: rationalism vs empiricism.

The objection against rationalism is a very valid one.
In reality, i do not think it is either one or the other though. In my view it is much more a chicken and egg kind of thing, neither of them came first, they mutually evolved.

Observation is always being shaped by raw input as well as expectations, and expectations and ideas are being shaped by previous experiences.

Within mathematics itself even, there is a debate between platonism and intuitionism: does mathematical truth exist independant of mankind, or is it essentially a human creation?

I suspect platonism is at the core of your rejection of SR: The idea of there being an immaterial sort of world, a realm, of mathematical truths that exists by itself, independant of everything else, that governs everything.

I personally also reject that notion.
 
PREV1234NEXT
 
Users browsing this forum
Guest

DMT-Nexus theme created by The Traveler
This page was generated in 0.077 seconds.