What is matter?

[ontological_realist]

What seemed to be indeterminacy should have been a clue that there is an outside dimension affecting the movements. Only an intentionally mindless culture would answer that things "just happen," the Willy-Nilly Theory. Not only that, the postmodernists insist on it and ban any attempt to return to puzzling things out.

A great statement.

 

[beero1000]

What seemed to be indeterminacy should have been a clue that there is an outside dimension affecting the movements. Only an intentionally mindless culture would answer that things "just happen," the Willy-Nilly Theory. Not only that, the postmodernists insist on it and ban any attempt to return to puzzling things out.

A great statement.

I guess it's too bad that it just isn't true. It's almost like random people on the internet think that they are better at physics than physicists...

Seriously though, there's been enough experimental verification of the violation of Bell's inequalities for us to pretty solidly reject any notion of hidden deterministic variables mimicking quantum results. Unless you want to assume FTL communication and throw away relativity as well?

 

[untermensche]

A great statement.

I guess it's too bad that it just isn't true. It's almost like random people on the internet think that they are better at physics than physicists...

Seriously though, there's been enough experimental verification of the violation of Bell's inequalities for us to pretty solidly reject any notion of hidden deterministic variables mimicking quantum results. Unless you want to assume FTL communication and throw away relativity as well?

Why does somebody like Lawrence Krauss insist the universe is deterministic?

 

[skepticalbip]

That need not be read into what I wrote.

I just don't see how the practical application of science is not also science.

My view of science seems broader than some.

Someone who is actually engaged in science or engineering would likely have a better understanding of the difference than someone who has never been schooled in either. Just because someone works at Bell Labs (or uses an instrument with blinking lights ) doesn't make them a scientist.

These are only matters of opinion.

Again you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between opinion and fact.

And you seem to have trouble understanding that definitions pulled from your arse based on what feels good to you only hold weight for you.

 

[beero1000]

I guess it's too bad that it just isn't true. It's almost like random people on the internet think that they are better at physics than physicists...

Seriously though, there's been enough experimental verification of the violation of Bell's inequalities for us to pretty solidly reject any notion of hidden deterministic variables mimicking quantum results. Unless you want to assume FTL communication and throw away relativity as well?

Why does somebody like Lawrence Krauss insist the universe is deterministic?

You misunderstand his position. He says that the laws of quantum mechanics are not themselves random, which is true. He also says that if we make a measurement, that determinism goes out the window and we get a random result. That is also true.

Why he insists on making that nitpicky distinction, I have no idea. It seems more trouble than it's worth.

 

[beero1000]

As for the whole engineering versus science thing - they are different. An engineer designs/builds things and a scientist understands/predicts things. The Romans were great engineers, their construction projects are still legendary, but they were surprisingly anti-math and science, and were shitty scientists.

Engineers don't really care why something works - it is enough that it does, and they use that to design/create objects. Arches are a good example: you don't need to know any of the material science micro-structure or force diagrams, etc, to know that arches are strong and you can use them to hold up stuff. People were using arches in construction well before any notion of scientific principles were around. On the other hand, a scientist cares about why arches are strong and what exactly is happening when you apply force to one.

People can certainly be both scientists and engineers - many engineers work to build better arches, and nowadays you'd be a pretty crappy engineer if you didn't have at least a decent understanding results of science, but at their heart they are fundamentally different disciplines. Personally, I think that their "assume this is true and use it" engineering philosophy is why so many 'scientist' anti-science (intelligent design, global warming, etc) proponents happen to be engineers.

 

[untermensche]

That need not be read into what I wrote.

I just don't see how the practical application of science is not also science.

My view of science seems broader than some.

Someone who is actually engaged in science or engineering would likely have a better understanding of the difference than someone who has never been schooled in either. Just because someone works at Bell Labs (or uses an instrument with blinking lights ) doesn't make them a scientist.

These are only matters of opinion.

Again you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between opinion and fact.

And you seem to have trouble understanding that definitions pulled from your arse based on what feels good to you only hold weight for you.

You are just simple minded.

You equate examination of ideas with pulling ideas from your ass.

Your kind never brings knowledge forward.

- - - Updated - - -

As for the whole engineering versus science thing - they are different. An engineer designs/builds things...

Using what as a guide?

Intuition?

 

[fromderinside]

That need not be read into what I wrote.

I just don't see how the practical application of science is not also science.

My view of science seems broader than some.

Someone who is actually engaged in science or engineering would likely have a better understanding of the difference than someone who has never been schooled in either. Just because someone works at Bell Labs (or uses an instrument with blinking lights ) doesn't make them a scientist.

These are only matters of opinion.

Again you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between opinion and fact.

And you seem to have trouble understanding that definitions pulled from your arse based on what feels good to you only hold weight for you.

You are just simple minded.

You equate examination of ideas with pulling ideas from your ass.

Your kind never brings knowledge forward.

- - - Updated - - -

As for the whole engineering versus science thing - they are different. An engineer designs/builds things...

Using what as a guide?

Intuition?

Guides were developed by scientists and standards people for engineers to use. They are a systematized collection of understanding about a domain such as rivet criteria in specified settings.

 

[untermensche]

Guides were developed by scientists and standards people for engineers to use. They are a systematized collection of understanding about a domain such as rivet criteria in specified settings.

So what part is not the use of science?

 

[beero1000]

Guides were developed by scientists and standards people for engineers to use. They are a systematized collection of understanding about a domain such as rivet criteria in specified settings.

So what part is not the use of science?

All of it.

You have actual engineers telling you that your claims about engineers are false. Can't you just accept that your opinion is wrong?

 

[untermensche]

So what part is not the use of science?

All of it.

You have actual engineers telling you that your claims about engineers are false. Can't you just accept that your opinion is wrong?

Your dogmatic proclamation is noted.

What I'm looking for is logical argument.

When you find yourself capable of that you will have value.

 

[bilby]

All of it.

You have actual engineers telling you that your claims about engineers are false. Can't you just accept that your opinion is wrong?

Your dogmatic proclamation is noted.

What I'm looking for is logical argument.

When you find yourself capable of that you will have value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.

 

[untermensche]

Your dogmatic proclamation is noted.

What I'm looking for is logical argument.

When you find yourself capable of that you will have value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.

Thanks for the opinion.

Once again NO logical argument.

 

[skepticalbip]

That need not be read into what I wrote.

I just don't see how the practical application of science is not also science.

My view of science seems broader than some.

Someone who is actually engaged in science or engineering would likely have a better understanding of the difference than someone who has never been schooled in either. Just because someone works at Bell Labs (or uses an instrument with blinking lights ) doesn't make them a scientist.

These are only matters of opinion.

Again you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between opinion and fact.

And you seem to have trouble understanding that definitions pulled from your arse based on what feels good to you only hold weight for you.

You are just simple minded.

You equate examination of ideas with pulling ideas from your ass.

Your kind never brings knowledge forward.

Inventing a language of your own that only you understand is not examination of ideas. The purpose of language is to communicate. Communication requires that everyone engaged in a discussion understand the meaning of the words being used. The meanings of the words "scientist" and "engineer" already have specific meanings for those who understand them. Someone trying to communicate with these people who don't have a clue and feels free to use the words any way they wish is not communicating with anyone.

Gotta giggle that you call claiming that there is no difference between science and engineering "examination of ideas".

 

[untermensche]

That need not be read into what I wrote.

I just don't see how the practical application of science is not also science.

My view of science seems broader than some.

Someone who is actually engaged in science or engineering would likely have a better understanding of the difference than someone who has never been schooled in either. Just because someone works at Bell Labs (or uses an instrument with blinking lights ) doesn't make them a scientist.

These are only matters of opinion.

Again you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between opinion and fact.

And you seem to have trouble understanding that definitions pulled from your arse based on what feels good to you only hold weight for you.

You are just simple minded.

You equate examination of ideas with pulling ideas from your ass.

Your kind never brings knowledge forward.

Inventing a language of your own that only you understand is not examination of ideas. The purpose of language is to communicate. Communication requires that everyone engaged in a discussion understand the meaning of the words being used. The meanings of the words "scientist" and "engineer" already have specific meanings for those who understand them. Someone trying to communicate with these people who don't have a clue and feels free to use the words any way they wish is not communicating with anyone.

Gotta giggle that you call claiming that there is no difference between science and engineering "examination of ideas".

You are so dense you think talking about your girlish giggling is an argument.

Again, what part of engineering is not the practical application of science?

And how is the application of science not a part of science?

 

[skepticalbip]

So what part is not the use of science?

All of it.

You have actual engineers telling you that your claims about engineers are false. Can't you just accept that your opinion is wrong?

I'm pretty sure that he really doesn't care. Unter- just wants to keep provoking responses and talking nonsense, repeating the same nonsense, and ignoring corrections is an effective method of doing that.

 

[skepticalbip]

That need not be read into what I wrote.

I just don't see how the practical application of science is not also science.

My view of science seems broader than some.

Someone who is actually engaged in science or engineering would likely have a better understanding of the difference than someone who has never been schooled in either. Just because someone works at Bell Labs (or uses an instrument with blinking lights ) doesn't make them a scientist.

These are only matters of opinion.

Again you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between opinion and fact.

And you seem to have trouble understanding that definitions pulled from your arse based on what feels good to you only hold weight for you.

You are just simple minded.

You equate examination of ideas with pulling ideas from your ass.

Your kind never brings knowledge forward.

Inventing a language of your own that only you understand is not examination of ideas. The purpose of language is to communicate. Communication requires that everyone engaged in a discussion understand the meaning of the words being used. The meanings of the words "scientist" and "engineer" already have specific meanings for those who understand them. Someone trying to communicate with these people who don't have a clue and feels free to use the words any way they wish is not communicating with anyone.

Gotta giggle that you call claiming that there is no difference between science and engineering "examination of ideas".

You are so dense you think talking about your girlish giggling is an argument.

Again, what part of engineering is not the practical application of science?

And how is the application of science not a part of science?

Again, that was completely unresponsive to the post you are pretending to be responding to. You are just repeating your nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

You are so dense you think talking about your girlish giggling is an argument.

Again, what part of engineering is not the practical application of science?

And how is the application of science not a part of science?

Again, that was completely unresponsive to the post you are pretending to be responding to. You are just repeating your nonsense.

You notice, there are two questions.

You posted them but somehow managed not to see them.

 

[Kharakov]

Why does somebody like Lawrence Krauss insist the universe is deterministic?

You misunderstand his position. He says that the laws of quantum mechanics are not themselves random, which is true. He also says that if we make a measurement, that determinism goes out the window and we get a random result. That is also true.

Not random- unpredictable. Bell's theorem doesn't rule out non-local hidden variables, and in fact, it doesn't rule out local hidden variables of the conscious variety (some beings deliberately interfering with all experiments to obfuscate the true nature of reality- they only have to fuck with a few scientists, so it's not out of the question).

In fact, the theorem could be an obfuscation itself...

 

[bilby]

You misunderstand his position. He says that the laws of quantum mechanics are not themselves random, which is true. He also says that if we make a measurement, that determinism goes out the window and we get a random result. That is also true.

Not random- unpredictable. Bell's theorem doesn't rule out non-local hidden variables, and in fact, it doesn't rule out local hidden variables of the conscious variety (some beings deliberately interfering with all experiments to obfuscate the true nature of reality- they only have to fuck with a few scientists, so it's not out of the question).

If you haven't already, you should definitely read The Three Body Problem, by Cixin Liu.

In fact, the theorem could be an obfuscation itself...