• ernest meyer
    100
    Weight is observable, but mass is conceptual, and the actual nature of matter is ultimately indeterminate. In conventional physics, mass is fixed, and matter warps space at Einsteinian scales. That's a convenient way of modeling the observable world, and results in many accurate predictions, so it's become commonly held that the existence of fixed properties for matter, such as mass, is a 'fact' by scientists in the USA.

    However, one could equally say space is a fixed Euclidean framework, and gravity warps matter at Einsteinian scales. It's just shifting the equations around so that a different variable is fixed, which may be more complicated to represent, and may be more difficult to imagine, but still totally equivalent. Which is warping: space or matter? We can't tell. We are accustomed to the weight of objects not observably changing due to gravity, and so it is natural for us to think of mass as 'fixed.' Yet it could be that in reality, space stays fixed and matter warps. No experiment could distinguish between the two.

    But the latter view, that space is fixed and warps matter, can even be convenient in some cases. What if mass DOES vary in size, in the same way as weight varies by gravity, at Einsteinian scale? That provides one possibility for modeling the 'crushing of matter' in black holes , when the distance of nuclei is less than their size. And there's string theory, within which a fixed Euclidean space could be the base three dimensions in a more sophisticated multidimensional representation of reality.

    Thus mass as a fixed property value is a meaningful concept, and very useful for most cases. But it's still an imagined property of the universe, convenient to us at the scale we see it. Scientific theory can't get as far as defining the three basic dimensions (space, time, and mass) without running into irresolvable epistemological alternatives as to what actually exists. So Popperians say, not only is weight observable and mass imagined, but also go on to say, just as mass is imaginary, all of science is just an imagined 'model of reality'--A very meaningful and extremely powerful model, because it provides a huge number of useful predictions and possible explanations. Nonetheless, it is still never more than an imagined model in epistemological terms.

    Sadly, very few Americans now alive have reached the same conclusion, however rational the Popperian view is. And the problem has been getting worse for a while. On Wikipedia, the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) states that scientific theory defines what 'facts' are 'true'' about 'reality:'

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory". It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

    The Academy of Science still has a Popperian definition, but the AAAS definition says scientific theories 'define' facts of reality. The majority of Americans do not know there is more than one definition of scientific theory, and only know the AAAS definition. The public therefore assumes that science states the existence of matter with fixed mass to be a factual reality, and that mass is not an imagined property of the Universe, but 'real' in an absolute sense. While that might not seem so important, the consequences are horrifying.

    Many consider science's claim to define reality as a license to overrule it with their own preferred beliefs, olr to unjustificalby use it a foundation for a beliefl. For example, people choose to "believe in" EVOLUTION as 'the scientific explanation' which 'explains away' the existence of God. Any Creator more intelligent than human beings were 5,000 years ago would similarly use evolution as a tool, but historical biases have created hate-filled debates on the topic. This would only be a matter of religion, but now the same phenomenon is happening with GLOBAL WARMING, in the opposite direction: people choose not to be 'believe in' the existence of global warming. Its existence should not a question of belief.

    Scientific conclusions gauge the likelihood of future events based on a predictive model, and one does not 'believe in it, one understands the meaningfulness of the predictions. The existence of global warming is scientifically rather unquestionable, as it is based on the laws of thermodynamics and easily repeatable experiments on atmospheric gasses. There are problems with estimating how fast global warming is, but its existence is rather undeniable, without totally rewriting the laws of physics. So there isn't much question of what one 'believes in.' If one doesn't understand the theory, one should accept the conclusions of those that do. Few do so.

    In the USA, distrust of a discipline that has declared it is defining 'facts' about 'reality' is rampant. An entire Presidential Administration denied that global warming even exists, rather than fund research on how fast the problem is becoming increasingly irreversible, losing critical time for gathering data. This is a matter of survival of the human race. It shouldn't be up to grabs on what one believes. By defining itself as stating 'facts' about 'reality,' science is turning itself into religion, about which one may have different beliefs, based on some superior authority of intuition that has been worshipped in the USA ever since John Adams wrongly said 'natural rights' are self evident. Other nations have chosen others, so natural rights are clearly not self evident. But the fallacy is taught at such an early age, self-evident intuition is still held to be completely superior to the Western empiricism which actually led to Jefferson's choice of natural rights. In exactly the same way, by asserting that science defines 'facts' about 'reality,' people assume their intuitions about its conclusions must be correct, without trying to understand the reasoning and scientific observations leading to modeled predictions.

    At this rate, those who intuitively 'disbelieve in' global warming, who shouldn't even exist, will destroy the world. They shouldn't even exist. So what to do about that? Should we let the arrogance of science, in stating it defines "facts about reality," be the cause of the demise of the human race?I call philosophers to contact the AAAS and say its definition of scientific theory should be changed:

    [url=http://]https://www.aaas.org/[/url]

    Please join me in this cause :)
  • T Clark
    13k
    The first three and a half paragraphs of your post are confusing and questionable. More importantly, I don't see how they are relevant to the rest of the post, which is a reasonable exposition on the idea that

    all of science is just an imagined 'model of reality'-ernest meyer

    Which I understand and agree with.
  • ernest meyer
    100
    how is it questionnable? its just shifting equations around to a different representation. This already happened, incidentally, in the postulation of 'ether' as a fixed framework behind space, and after many misguided experiments, it became generally accepted the existence of 'ether' or not was also indeterminate.
  • ernest meyer
    100
    but whatever the case on that, with regard to science being a model, I hope you will write the AAAS and ask it to modify its definition of scientific theory on the Wikipedia :)
  • T Clark
    13k
    how is it questionnable?ernest meyer

    I think you will find people balking at the way you have characterized weight and mass. I know I did. That only distracts from the what I see as the main message of your post.
  • ernest meyer
    100
    If they balk at what I say about mass being imagined, and that the absolute nature of matter is actually indeterminate, then no, they will have no reason to complain about the AAAS stating scientific theory is fact.
  • Zophie
    176
    the actual nature of matter is ultimately indeterminate.ernest meyer
    Ye'. This is known. I think there is a chance you may be getting ahead of yourself.
  • ernest meyer
    100
    well, not according to the AAAS. Please write them and ask to change their definition of scientific theory, lol.
  • Zophie
    176
    I don't see a problem with the definition.
  • ernest meyer
    100
    I explained the problem I see, but as people can't imagine a universe with a fixed Euclidean geometry and varying size matter here, it's not something that is going to change the fate of humanity. I'm just glad Im almost dead. Have a great day )
  • Banno
    23.1k
    However, one could equally say space is a fixed Euclidean framework, and gravity warps matter at Einsteinian scales.ernest meyer

    Then it should be no problem for you to show us these transformations.

    Physics without the mathematics is mysticism. Or worse, Psychoceramics.

    Odd, that in order to protect us from global warming, you call for an attack on the very folk who revealed global warming.
  • ernest meyer
    100

    If you cant understand the 'transformation' the way Ive described it already, its not my problem to educate you on the basics of mathematics, especially as you call it a transformation and therefore should know its possible. You would also know there is more than one possible alternative, and the speed of light would not be represented by a constant in the resulting equation.

    It's not particularly original either, people have been saying it since George Gamow. I feel very bad for him, as the USA decided Einstein's representation was 'fact,' and he was not accorded the respect he was due for his contributions to science either. And its not limited to Einsteinian theory. Here is another example from Gamow:

    In his 1961 book The Atom and its Nucleus, Gamow proposed representing the periodic system of the chemical elements as a continuous tape, with the elements in order of atomic number wound round in a three-dimensional helix whose diameter increased stepwise (corresponding to the longer rows of the conventional periodic table).

    So much for the periodic table as 'fact.' It's not. It's a representational model. But now the AAAS says it is 'factual reality.'

    As to your last criticism, I find it very ironic that scientists in the USA are so intent on wreaking their own destruction, and that a board administrator is snide about my point based on easily falsifiable observation. It was not people who decided science defines factual reality that 'revealed' global warming, it was a Swedish scientist in 1896--which you didnt bother looking up before criticizing me for being hypocritical. It was just too delicious for you wasnt it. And that's it for me. Im off. I shared the thought. That was the extent of my obligation. You have yourself a nice day there.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Didn't think you could. It's making the speed of light no longer a constant that will let you down, because then it would no longer be a mere translation. The speed of light is a constant.

    Bye.
  • ernest meyer
    100
    Well that's the problem, Banno, its only constant to our, or in this case, your, limited comnprehension. If the equations are equivalent, they produce the same results. They are indistinguishable. Its called a function TRANSFORMATION, actually, not translation. To us both, time appears one dimensional and unidirectional, which also may be an artifact of our consciousness. You have a nice day there.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    If the equations are equivalent, they produce the same results.ernest meyer

    Indeed; and yet one set of equations says c is a fixed limit, the other that it is not. Only one of these can be correct.

    It's not the latter.

    Physics is written in mathematics. Present the mathematics, or head off to Europe. But you will not find the scientists there any more accomodating to your eccentricities.
  • ernest meyer
    100
    they are equivalent transformations. In the case of changing the speed of light, calculus can easily create an imaginary term to make the speed of light change by a differentiation method. We can't assume such terms don't actually exist, even if the result appears to use to be constant as we choose to consider it, it's still only a property of a model with equivalent mathematical alternatives.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.