User Controls
should lanny stop pretending to be an important philosopher
-
2018-11-14 at 1:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by Odigo Messenger - Now With Free 911 Service I don't. Why don't you explain it to us all?
There are an infinite number of paths a particle can take between any 2 points, however all but a small range of paths cancel out, and the possible paths overwhelmingly converge on a straight line between the two points.
The relevance is that there might be an infinite number of hypotheses that can explain a particular phenomenon but they sure seem to converge on some in particular. -
2018-11-14 at 2:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by PhD in Condom Mechanics There are an infinite number of paths a particle can take between any 2 points, however all but a small range of paths cancel out, and the possible paths overwhelmingly converge on a straight line between the two points.
The relevance is that there might be an infinite number of hypotheses that can explain a particular phenomenon but they sure seem to converge on some in particular.
Why is it valid to apply the mathematics of wave functions to abstract knowledge? -
2018-11-14 at 2:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by PhD in Condom Mechanics There are an infinite number of paths a particle can take between any 2 points, however all but a small range of paths cancel out, and the possible paths overwhelmingly converge on a straight line between the two points.
The relevance is that there might be an infinite number of hypotheses that can explain a particular phenomenon but they sure seem to converge on some in particular.
Very well said.
You didn't really have to call me a retard earlier, but whatever, bygones be bygones, water under the bridge, and so forth.
This convergence towards a singular explanation is kind of exactly what I was getting at earlier with the whole idea of pragmatic knowledge over pure knowledge.
These convergences towards a single source of truth are only probabilistically valid. Lanny was right when he pointed out that all this talk of statisticical inference and probabalistic conclusions are really just wishful thinking.
I personally take the position that scientific "fact" is tantamount to logical "fact".
But I know deep down that it's really just a set of statements about the universe that we all implicitly buy into, despite the fact that "Truth" with a captital T can't be espablished on such principles.
Basically, we exist in an epistemological void with no true knowledge to speak of, but we certainly have scientific "facts" that we can rely on with the same faith we often tend to apply to, say, religion. -
2018-11-14 at 4:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Very well said.
You didn't really have to call me a retard earlier, but whatever, bygones be bygones, water under the bridge, and so forth.
This convergence towards a singular explanation is kind of exactly what I was getting at earlier with the whole idea of pragmatic knowledge over pure knowledge.
These convergences towards a single source of truth are only probabilistically valid. Lanny was right when he pointed out that all this talk of statisticical inference and probabalistic conclusions are really just wishful thinking.
I personally take the position that scientific "fact" is tantamount to logical "fact".
But I know deep down that it's really just a set of statements about the universe that we all implicitly buy into, despite the fact that "Truth" with a captital T can't be espablished on such principles.
Basically, we exist in an epistemological void with no true knowledge to speak of, but we certainly have scientific "facts" that we can rely on with the same faith we often tend to apply to, say, religion.
so fucking gay -
2018-11-14 at 4:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by PhD in Condom Mechanics There are an infinite number of paths a particle can take between any 2 points, however all but a small range of paths cancel out, and the possible paths overwhelmingly converge on a straight line between the two points.
why are bolts of lightning almost always crooked ? -
2018-11-14 at 4:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny why are bolts of lightning almost always crooked ?
lightning is a crack in this reality. there's another mirror dimension where instead of being almost entirely empty space, it's almost entirely pure energy. when conditions are right, reality 'crazes' like acrylic when you cut it to fast, it shatters like glass breaking, and lightning is what you see in the cracks before it heals itself. -
2018-11-14 at 4:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Nigger Stole My Bike Why is it valid to apply the mathematics of wave functions to abstract knowledge?
It's just mathematics. Feynman's formulation allows us to actually derive the math behind wave functions (the Schroedinger equation) from pure geometry. So we know why Schroedinger's equation works from a mathematics standpoint.
The specific relevance is that even though you can make an infinite amount of hypotheses to explain any given phenomenon (or map any single path between two points), there are some fairly strong trends that make possible to at least reduce the scope to the more relevant hypotheses. -
2018-11-14 at 4:53 PM UTC
-
2018-11-14 at 5:23 PM UTC
-
2018-11-14 at 5:25 PM UTC
-
2018-11-14 at 5:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by snab_snib lightning is a crack in this reality. there's another mirror dimension where instead of being almost entirely empty space, it's almost entirely pure energy. when conditions are right, reality 'crazes' like acrylic when you cut it to fast, it shatters like glass breaking, and lightning is what you see in the cracks before it heals itself.
it heals as fast as it cracks ? -
2018-11-14 at 5:27 PM UTC
-
2018-11-14 at 5:31 PM UTC
-
2018-11-14 at 5:55 PM UTC
-
2018-11-14 at 6 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny why not ?
Well, the molecules in water vapor are not aligned, are they? They are like streams of water, with flows, ebbs, current and motion. The molecules may be more concentrated between a warm and cold front, they may be more sparse during low pressure. When ionization occurs, it tends to follow the paths and properties of the various molecular groups involved. -
2018-11-14 at 6:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Well, the molecules in water vapor are not aligned, are they? They are like streams of water, with flows, ebbs, current and motion. The molecules may be more concentrated between a warm and cold front, they may be more sparse during low pressure. When ionization occurs, it tends to follow the paths and properties of the various molecular groups involved.
i see.
i thought electricity enjoys taking the shortest distance of travel. -
2018-11-14 at 7:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by Odigo Messenger - Now With Free 911 Service You speak like a politician when you are shown to be wrong. How the fuck did you manage to deflect my very specific observation into a meaningless platitude about the scientific method in general? You and CF are on a similar intellectual level, goddam.
Deflecting? You're the one that's deflecting lol. This discussion started with this post:
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny if you really think of it, quantum mechanics are really just philosophies since most of it are just theoretical.
ie, think-dos.
Which Falcon, and I, and you if you've taken like 5 minutes to read the most basic description or history of QM, agree is plainly false. QM is testable in the same basic way all successful physical theories are testable, there is nothing special about it that makes it immune to empirical investigation or falsification.
You then took my post out of context, thinking I was saying there was literally noting novel in QM at all when, if you read my post in context, it's obvious I'm talking about testing and falsification. I then perfectly politely explain to you how you misunderstood my post and you accuse me of talking like a politician and deflecting? When you're the one who can't follow the discussion and try to ignore the context in order to not admit you were wrong? Suck a fat dick faggot. -
2018-11-14 at 10:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by PhD in Condom Mechanics It's just mathematics. Feynman's formulation allows us to actually derive the math behind wave functions (the Schroedinger equation) from pure geometry. So we know why Schroedinger's equation works from a mathematics standpoint.
The specific relevance is that even though you can make an infinite amount of hypotheses to explain any given phenomenon (or map any single path between two points), there are some fairly strong trends that make possible to at least reduce the scope to the more relevant hypotheses.
This is plain wrong, and your description of path integrals was missed the point too.
Lanny, QM is a model, not a hypothesis. You can't directly test a model.
You guys are worse than a pair of new agers banging their crystals together to raise their vibrations.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-11-14 at 10:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny why dont ionizations occur on a straight line ?
This is actually a really good question, and I have never found any place where it is adequately answered or the processes behind it modeled.
It isn't just due to "water vapour" etc, because neon plasma balls and kirlian photographs exhibit lightning bolt patterns.
It may be due to similarly charged ions repelling each other, or electricity producing an electromotive force as it flows. -
2018-11-14 at 10:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by GGG Those fundamental thoughts were around before the philosophers were, and would've been around long after had they not existed.
Aristotle and other philosophers who actually science'd are a little different. Nigga had formulas, not just thoughts. He was a scientist before it was cool to be one, though I guess if you break it down, all scientists are fundamentally philosophers.
Not really no
.
