The Astrophysical Journal — counterpunch

Found your shift key, huh? Well done!

Found your shift key, huh? Well done! — Kenosha Kid

No. wikipedia did. oh, sorry, Wikipedia. lol

I'll take the Zhou Enlai 'It's too early to tell.' response. Much earlier in this thread, around the place of your post, there was the example of climate change and dying reefs. The proscience position related to that example is 'how do we know about this? science'. A counter could be that science led to technology that causes global warming and possibly we are incapable of making the changes to undo this. One could disagree on this in a number of ways, but likely most people would acknowledge that the jury is still out about both the consequences of priortizing the scientific methodology and of what humans do with science.

I think we'd have to define science. Are we referring to the epistemology, the implicit ontology(ies), the practice of science in general. I think a good case can be made that it is a tool, but since the tool has implicit ideas both about reality (ontology) and Truth and how to find it, it is expanding the idea of tool radically. A heuristic I think can be viewed as a tool, even if it is a kind of abstraction and cognition, but Science is a very complicated process with built in attitudes.

I think a case can be made that certain tools are bad (for humans). I think bioweapons are bad (for humans). The specific chain/manacles made for slavery. IOW not chains per se.

Ars sine scientia nihil est

Well, much more than 37bn. Part of inflation theory is that the universe must be much, much larger than the observable universe. However, no magic necessary, just counting. 2c for two adjacent points. Next add a third. You have points A, B and C in a row. A is receding from B at almost the speed of light. B is receding from C at roughly the same speed. How fast is A receding from C? — Kenosha Kid

Don't forget that we might assume an infinite number of points between any two spatially separated points, then we really do have an insanely fast separation. More like a terrible hypothesis though. Anyway, this stuff is not even science at all, so it shouldn't be presented as an example of science, or, @counterpunch.an example of scientific failure.

There's no empirical evidence which indicates that the separation between two supposed points, due to expansion, is limited to c. We don't even know how to find the points which are supposed to be separating from each other. So we might assume an infinite number of such points within any volume of space, and then we have nonsense, Scientists don't even have a vague idea as to how light moves through space which is not supposed to be expanding, so how are they ever going to make theories about how light moves in a space which is composed of points moving rapidly away from each other in all directions? Maybe if they weren't so quick to reject ether theories, the expanding points could be the vibrating particles of a substance.

So how does that relate to or rebut or support (I add for completeness. though doubtfull it is this last) what I wrote.

heuristic I think can be viewed as a tool, even if it is a kind of abstraction and cognition, but Science is a very complicated process with built in attitudes. — Bylaw

I agree. Science or knowledge is always biased in the sense that it orbits some worldview.

That quote is from the philosophy of architecture. So what's the relationship between a scientist and an architect?

More like a terrible hypothesis though. Anyway, this stuff is not even science at all, so it shouldn't be presented as an example of science, or, counterpunch.an example of scientific failure. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's the standard cosmological model, you can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29?wprov=sfla1

I'm very familiar with it. But cosmology is metaphysics, not science.

You are insane.

You are insane. — Kenosha Kid

Right, we know how you use that word "insane": " the 'inflationary period', while brief, was insanely rapid". When you don't understand something you designate it as "insane". You do not understand me therefore I am insane.

Since you have absolutely no idea as to any of the specifics concerning this "insanely rapid" expansion, it makes no sense for you to call this "science". Clearly, from your description, there might be an infinite number of spatial points, each with an infinite number of spatial points between them, with each spatial point receding from every other, at some absolutely arbitrarily designated speed. The designation of a speed is really irrelevant because if there's an infinity of these points to even the smallest parcel of space, then the speed of inflation is necessarily infinite.

Cosmology – a central branch of metaphysics, that studies the origin, fundamental structure, nature, and dynamics of the universe. — Wikipedia: Outline of Metaphysics

Inflationary theory, as you describe it, Kenosha Kid, is not science, but extremely bad metaphysics.

Right, we know how you use that word "insane": " the 'inflationary period', while brief, was insanely rapid". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, I'm using the word an insane amount of times. But in this case, I just meant that you're quite mad.

Since you have absolutely no idea as to any of the specifics concerning this "insanely rapid" expansion, it makes no sense for you to call this "science". — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm no cosmologist, more a cosmo-hobbyist, but I know enough to e.g. hold a conversation with one. The hypothesis is that a positive vacuum energy would cause an exponential expansion of the universe, and we can make certain scientific predictions from this hypothesis: the CMB and the distribution of matter should be pretty independent of the precise distribution of quantum fluctuations in the early universe, creating a visible universe that is instead more or less homogeneous and isotropic. This is what we see. Such an inflation field would stop magnetic monopoles from forming, and indeed we see no magnetic monopoles. It would also yield a visible universe that is locally very flat, which is what we have. I know that this must be a positive-energy scalar field, making the Higgs field a potential contender, and the remnants of this field are a contender for dark energy, a reference to the empirical observation that the universe's expansion is accelerating isotropically.

Modelling, hypothesis, observation: so far, so scientific, not to mention that inflationary cosmology comes from scientific research groups, not philosophical ones, and the founders of the theory have won prizes for breakthroughs in science, not metaphysics.

So on that level, calling it metaphysics not science is insane, but more generally your approach in all such conversations of:
1. doing no research into a field
2. demonstrating no understanding of that field
3. concluding from your zero understanding that the field must be at fault
4. concluding from your deduction that you must know more than anyone else
is extremely pathological, and not in any beneficial way. This is, after all, not our first rodeo and you pull the same stunt every time.

Permission btw to ignore all that and just respond with "You said insane again, you clearly know nothing and I know everything". We're not expecting miracles.

Yeah, I'm using the word an insane amount of times. But in this case, I just meant that you're quite mad. — Kenosha Kid

Sad preacher nailed upon the coloured door of time
Insane teacher be there reminded of the rhyme
There'll be no mutant enemy we shall certify
Political ends, as sad remains, will die
Reach out as forward tastes begin to enter you
— Yes, And You and I

Modelling, hypothesis, observation: so far, so scientific, not to mention that inflationary cosmology comes from scientific research groups, not philosophical ones, and the founders of the theory have won prizes for breakthroughs in science, not metaphysics. — Kenosha Kid

Those are not observations. They are interpretations made through the application of dubious theories. I know that you don't agree that the theories are dubious, but there is no reason to believe that general relativity is applicable toward understanding inflationary theory. Anomalies such as "dark energy" and "dark matter" demonstrate the inapplicability of the these theories which are applied in the interpretation of the observations.

So on that level, calling it metaphysics not science is insane — Kenosha Kid

I don't know why you think that calling cosmology "metaphysics", which is the conventional norm as I demonstrated with Wikipedia quote, is insanity. But I think that calling an hypothesis "science", when the hypothesis is not at all consistent with observations, as the need to assume mystical, magical entities like "dark matter" and "dark energy" demonstrates, is worse than insanity, it's intellectual dishonesty. Calling your metaphysics "science" and trying to back up that claim with faulty interpretations of observations, is nothing other than deception.

But I think that calling an hypothesis "science", when the hypothesis is not at all consistent with observations, as the need to assume mystical, magical entities like "dark matter" and "dark energy" demonstrates, is worse than insanity, it's intellectual dishonesty. — Metaphysician Undercover

Viz:

more generally your approach in all such conversations of:
1. doing no research into a field
2. demonstrating no understanding of that field
3. concluding from your zero understanding that the field must be at fault
4. concluding from your deduction that you must know more than anyone else
is extremely pathological, and not in any beneficial way. — Kenosha Kid

Seems you're incapable of sticking to the topic. Why? Is it because you actually know how completely ridiculous, and completely unscientific, your description of inflation between spatial points is, so you're eager to change the subject?

Until you can empirically demonstrate any real points in space, with inflation between them, I'll continue to assume an infinite number of points between any two points in space, therefore inflation necessarily at an infinite speed.

The best you can do is say "normal rules for inertial frames (including universal speed limits) don't apply". What hurts like a kick in the balls, is that you insist this is science. Oh yeah, science is the discipline where rules don't apply! Have you absolutely no respect for true science? Calling this crap science is the worst disrespect for science that I've ever seen. Call it what it is, will you please, "metaphysics". You will not though, because you know it would be rejected by educated metaphysicians, as terrible metaphysics.

You are insane.

Have you considered the inherent difficulties of studying something so big and so old as the universe? I do not accept cosmology 'is not science' just because I do not understand how the universe can be 14bn years old, and 93bn light years across - if nothing can travel faster than light. I don't understand the galactic rotation problem, or dark matter either. These are puzzles - science may be able to solve given enough time. But maybe, no matter how long we exist, or how far we travel, we'll never be able to gather the evidence we need to solve these problems, precisely because the universe is so big and so old. Maybe cosmology is where science flows into metaphysics - with theories we'll never be in a position to justify or falsify.

Since you're refusing to address the issue, I'll take the time to characterize you, as you did me.

You present us with bad metaphysics, and call it "science", so that when a metaphysician demonstrates the flaws in your metaphysics, you can dismiss it all by saying that the metaphysician has no understanding of that field.

you can dismiss it all by saying that the metaphysician has no understanding of that field — Metaphysician Undercover

With utmost accuracy. I'm an idiot for getting into this with you.

just because I do not understand how the universe can be 14bn years old, and 93bn light years across - if nothing can travel faster than light. — counterpunch

Completely random, but because I saw a video about that yesterday: the "speed of light" isn't a speed limit in the traditional sense. Objects can have arbitrarily high relative velocities. If you had a magical laser pointer that could transmit a Beam onto the surface of Mars with pinpoint accuracy, you could use that to write your name on the surface in giant letters, and the point on Mars' surface might move faster than light.

However, what you cannot do is cause any effect faster than light. The limit is on "information" in a generalized physical sense, not on any object. So taking the laser pointer on Mars example: even if you write the letters arbitrarily fast, moving the pointer over the surface arbitrarily fast, it will still take 13 minutes for any movement of your arm to have any effect on Mars. And these 13 minutes can not be circumvented.

I totally get why a laser pointer, directed from Earth, could move a point across the surface of Mars faster than light.

What I don't understand is how the universe can be 14bn years old and 93 light years wide.

If the Big Bang happened at a single point, and all energy and matter originates there - then any way you look at it - energy and matter has travelled over 3 times faster than light to get out that far.

The faster than light expansion of the early universe doesn't account for it as it was only a fraction of a second, from 10 to the power minus 34 seconds, to 10 to the power minus 31 seconds before the light speed limit was established.

It's not something I ever expect to understand. So please, don't try to explain. I raised it as an example, to introduce several arguments - that might have emerged in subsequent discussion.

Instead, Kenosha Kid tried to explain it, at great length - and so I never got to talk about science communication, or how science beholden to government and military funding - rather than science as the pure pursuit of truth, may need to appear to have answers, whether it actually has satisfactory answers or not. I suspect this of Cosmology and Quantum Physics in particular. I don't understand investing so much to tear the mask off God while failing to provide for survival. And this speaks to my more general argument, that we've used science without valuing science as an understanding of reality, and consequently, I think it's difficult to throw a rope around what exactly science does and doesn't know. Which, again, comes around to matter of science communication.

Another related point is more philosophical, and that is how does one approach science philosophically? The nihilist looks into the infinite universe and says - nothing matters. But what if, by rights, science begins at the fingertips? It's more consistent with a scientific epistemology to build from the bottom up, from here - outward, which in turn allows us to focus on what is true, and matters to us. We have a pretty good scientific understanding of the world around us. Good enough to survive - and prosper!

Ignoramus Et Ignoramibus

In 1880 Emil du Bois-Reymond delivered a speech to the Berlin Academy of Sciences enumerating seven "world riddles" or "shortcomings" of science:

1. the ultimate nature of matter and force;

2. the origin of motion;

3. the origin of life;

4. the "apparently teleological arrangements of nature" (not an "absolutely transcendent riddle");

5. the origin of simple sensations ("a quite transcendent" question);

6. the origin of intelligent thought and language (which might be known if the origin of sensations could be known);

and

7. the question of free will.

Concerning numbers 1, 2 and 5 he proclaimed "Ignorabimus" ("we will never know"). Concerning number 7 he proclaimed "Dubitemus" ("we doubt it').

That's a quite badly written Wikipedia page about The Seven World Riddles, and it doesn't list the seven, and nor do you! Has science solved some of them? You mention number seven as "Dubitemus" - but what is it?

I'll save you the trouble:

1. the ultimate nature of matter and force,
2. the origin of motion,
3. the origin of life,
4. the "apparently teleological arrangements of nature," not an "absolutely transcendent riddle,"
5. the origin of simple sensations, "a quite transcendent" question,
6. the origin of intelligent thought and language, which might be known if the origin of sensations could be known, and
7. the question of freewill.

That's better!

That's a quite badly written Wikipedia page about The Seven World Riddles, and it doesn't list the seven, and nor do you! — counterpunch

As a school in my locality likes to point out. Wikipedia isn't what it used to be. Quality deterioration over time is the norm rather than the exception. Still, as some say, something's better than nothing. I hope to see Wikipedia resuscitated and back in the game in a coupla years, fingers crossed. Plus, interest fades.

I'm surprised though that Wikipedia is first on a Google search list.

I found the list easy enough when I looked. If you want to incorporate it into your post, I'll delete my posts after!

No. It's not. And that's why Popper is wrong. — counterpunch

Actually Popper's only hard thesis was that humans and as a result their knowledge is subject to error. So, if you prove him wrong you are proving him right.

No. It's not. And that's why Popper is wrong. — counterpunch

I must have written that a thousand years ago.

Actually Popper's only hard thesis was that humans and as a result their knowledge is subject to error. So, if you prove him wrong you are proving him right. — Cheshire

Why post that here now - without a link? I've no idea where it came from - or what, precisely I was referring to. What I would say though - appropos of nothing in particular, is that accepting science as truth does not mean that we cannot limit the implications to that which is scientifically necessary to survival.

It would be unwise and undesirable to tear down the Churches, banks and borders - just because they're based in ideological ideas. Rather, recognising science as truth creates an extra-ideological rationale to do what's scientifically necessary to survival - in the first instance, applying the technology to harness limitless clean energy from magma.

Without that energy, there is no path to a viable sustainable future, so the implications are inherently limited - to a systematic scientific understanding of what's necessary to meet and overcome this global scale challenge.

Magma energy allows for carbon capture, hydrogen fuel, desalination and irrigation, recycling - in order to internalise the externalities of capitalism, without internalising them to the economy. So we can meet the climate challenge without imposing poverty by dictat and taxation, as if to eek out our miserable existence forever! We can have more and better - if we can only overcome our ideological limitations on this one issue, and science as truth is the one thing on which we might possibly agree.

And I'm insane to question the metaphysics of a person who rebukes the skeptic with 'it's science therefore your demonstrations of deficiency are irrational unless your a scientist' It doesn't take a scientist to understand metaphysics..

It doesn't take a scientist to understand metaphysics.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well that's true. And apparently it takes more than a metaphysician to recognise science. I guess we all have our niches, though I'm not sure what you're adding.