Anti-Trump Witches trying to figure out which of them cast the spell to give Trump Covid-19

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
1,408
127
68
Country
United Kingdom
Now, it's kind of cool that you can use maths to prove the limitations of maths. But that's not really what I'm talking about. The problem isn't whether math has limitations, it's whether math is actually capable of proving anything at all. Do the mental constructs of mathematics actually correspond to real things, or is it a closed logical system with no basis in reality, like Anselm's medieval scholastic theology. You cannot answer that question using mathematics. You could go and grab an abacus and start moving real beads around to show the validity of mathematical concepts, but then you're not really doing mathematics any more, you're making empirical observations, with all the baggage that implies.
Ah but we can only operate in the system we have and work based on humanities perception of reality as is.

While 1+1 may = 4 we only generally perceive it as 2.

How can 1 + 1 = 4 ?

Well 1 election + 1 electron each fired 1 at a time at two slit with the observation being the impact area behind the slits. When non observed they each would go through both slits. When we observe to see what happens at the slits the electrons would only go through 1 slit each. Thus 2 electrons can act seemingly as 4 or 2.


But it goes deeper than this. Because I'm not actually talking about mathematics. Mathematics is just a simplified way of talking about the capacity to derive universal truth from reason (and no, the fact that maths can prove the limits of maths does not imply that mathematical reason is not universal).



I mean, generally philosophy doesn't write about maths at all. Philosophers who do write about maths are called mathematicians (or sometimes philosophers of mathematics).

But you cannot even adequately define science without referencing the philosophy of science. The idea that philosophers don't understand science is genuinely ludicrous.



Because it is a problem or contradiction requiring the work of criticism and intellectual labour to resolve (in fact, it will in all likelihood never be permanently resolved). That's what a crisis, in the philosophical sense, means.

A crisis does not mean a sudden disaster, it does not mean people wailing or rending their clothes in the street. In an extremely oversimplified fashion, it means living in a world which does not make sense. The reason it's called the crisis of modernity is because modernity is an inherently incoherent state. It's not painful or distressing to live in an incoherent world, it's not a disaster, it just means never actually being able to substantiate the things that you believe.



Of course they do.

We all do.

Think about what it would mean for a second not to assume any universal truths about nature. Heck, science didn't even invent the idea of universals. There was a massive theological controversy at the end of the 13th century over the existence of universals (incidentally, there is a pretty direct line of descent between theology and science, at least on the topic of universals.)

But what you're getting at is that scientists understand the limitations of an assumption, and that is true. That is part of why science works (a very important feature of my argument which I notice you've entirely ignored). The problem isn't that scientists are bad and think that they as individuals can have perfect knowledge because they did a single weak experiment (although that is sometimes true, it's not really an argument against science itself). The problem is, limited in relation to what.

Again, if science as a discipline is continuously iterating and progressing towards this point of hypothetical (and possibly unreachable) perfect knowledge when all flaws and inconsistencies have been ironed out, then how can you actually guarantee that that point of knowledge is perfect? How can you guarantee it is more truthful? Again, how do you use science to prove the capacity of science to even draw closer to truth?

You say that science is capable of resolving its own biases. If this perception of advancing truthfulness was the result of bias, how would you actually know?

There is no point in attempting to reduce nature to universals unless you believe nature can be reduced to universals.



What a dumb, ignorant statement.

Again, the crisis of modernity is the failure of modernity to validate its own normative assumptions. For most modern philosophers, living in that state is actually very exciting and intellectually liberating, particularly if you try to compare it to some attempt to imagine a hypothetical modernity that is not in crisis and where STEM nerds actually are the universal authorities on the validity of all human knowledge that they sometimes pretend to be.

To quote some incel's fanfiction.

There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.

Since people have been reinfected, maybe this will make him get brave stupid and think he is invincible and go catch it again in his ignorance..
I think the present research on that is you can be re-infected by one of the what is it no 6 or 8 strains of the virus but certain strains give stronger immunity.

I think it was one of the weaker strains that means people can be infected with one of the stronger strains later.

I'd guess thought Trump caught one of the weaker strains unless Melania is presently still fairly ill
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
266
219
48
Country
United Kingdom
My issue with this thread, not your posts in particular, is the posts where some people try and toss in the "yeah well science gets things wrong, so who are they to say magic and other shit isn't valid?" That makes me want to reach into my monitor and smack some people. Nobody who actually is familiar with scientific method, ever says that it's perfect, and knows everything.
I think you're misunderstanding.

I don't think magic is valid. In fact think the whole Tumblr witch bullshit in particular is way more harmful than people give it credit for, for a bunch of long and boring reasons that aren't relevant here.

However, two hundred years ago, the world was full of countless knowledge systems. These systems were undeniably flawed and imperfect, and typically they weren't reconcilable to a single universal system of knowledge. However, they were deeply entwined with the lives of the people who existed within them. Those systems of knowledge were not voluntarily superseded. They were not openly and transparently proven wrong in the marketplace of free ideas. They were deliberately and systematically destroyed, often under the pretext of a white man's burden, providing western education or fostering conversion to Christianity (the superior, rational religion that it is). This is epistemicide, the deliberate destruction of other systems of knowledge in the service of universalization (a universalization that, in practice, looks suspiciously like white supremacy).

Epistemicide has not only left incredibly deep wounds in the social fabric of a lot of indigenous societies, it's also left us with an enduring cultural narrative of the superiority of Western knowledge and Western civilization, as if the search for truth itself can be represented as a Darwinian struggle between knowledge systems in which white people just happened to emerge victorious because of superior white genes or some shit.

Now, I'm not personally very supportive of the kind of crude attempts to reclaim pre-colonial epistemologies. I don't believe that you can ever truly resurrect dead systems of knowledge, especially not by embracing crude caricatures of magic precolonial people with their special connection to nature and special indigenous magic and rituals. Colonialism made non-white people close to nature and magic, and it did so in order to justify enslaving them, and I think it's far more empowering to remember that the inhabitants of pre-colonial societies could mend broken bones and build cities. But at the end of the day, it's not my struggle. If people find comfort in the idea that their ancestors understood the world through magic, then while I think that's a mangled and half-remembered version of a dead system of knowledge, I'm also kind of aware that my opinion shouldn't really matter.

Science is this incredible collective achievement. It's the first attempt in human history to build a system of knowledge that is truly universal, and in that ambition lies an emancipatory promise that one day the fruits of human knowledge can be available to everyone. However, that doesn't change the fact that the actual history of science is a history of brutal, systematic destruction of any countervailing knowledge system. It's a history of colonial violence which, if science was anything near as universally valuable and worthwhile as we claim it to be, shouldn't have been necessary.

As it is, we can never know if science actually works as a universal system of human knowledge, or whether it's a culturally specific system of human knowledge imposed onto people through violence and coercion. Because the unfortunately reality is that, in historical terms, it looks a lot more like the latter than the former.
 
Last edited:

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
1,717
799
118
I think you're misunderstanding.

I don't think magic is valid. In fact think the whole Tumblr witch bullshit in particular is way more harmful than people give it credit for, for a bunch of long and boring reasons that aren't relevant here.

However, two hundred years ago, the world was full of countless knowledge systems. These systems were undeniably flawed and imperfect, and typically they weren't reconcilable to a single universal system of knowledge. However, they were deeply entwined with the lives of the people who existed within them. Those systems of knowledge were not voluntarily superseded. They were not openly and transparently proven wrong in the marketplace of free ideas. They were deliberately and systematically destroyed, often under the pretext of a white man's burden, providing western education or fostering conversion to Christianity (the superior, rational religion that it is). This is epistemicide, the deliberate destruction of other systems of knowledge in the service of universalization (a universalization that, in practice, looks suspiciously like white supremacy).

Epistemicide has not only left incredibly deep wounds in the social fabric of a lot of indigenous societies, it's also left us with an enduring cultural narrative of the superiority of Western knowledge and Western civilization, as if the search for truth itself can be represented as a Darwinian struggle between knowledge systems in which white people just happened to emerge victorious.
......wow. Ok so, please present the better method for establishing truth from fiction, than critical analysis and scientific evaluation. I mean, the point about white colonialism aside, you do understand that those ancient white scientist conquerors you are describing, could be both complete assholes when dealing with other cultures, AND also happen to have the better method of evaluating claims on the natural world right? I mean those aren't mutually exclusive. And the fact that some of these test tube torturers that you are describing, might have been assholes, doesn't mean they weren't correct about the scientific method.

See, here's the thing, you say "hey there were other methods of study." Ok, great, present them. People today are far less genocidal than 200 years ago, and I'm pretty sure if someone would you know, publish a paper, detailing this other method of evaluating evidence, people would happily review it for it's validity. The thing is, they never do this. And I don't mean these "extinct methods of study" that you are referring to. I'm talking about the various other claims out NOW. The scientific community is basically saying "Show us your work." But none of them do it.

As to the comment about darwinian evolution of the system of studying the world, well yes, it pretty much does work that way. Methods are presented, used, and tested for their efficacy. If they don't measure up, they are discarded. Sure, maybe there is some "other" method of testing theories that were purged from the earth by hostile cultures, but, I mean a LOT of things have died from that. What do you suggest we do as a result? Because frankly nothing about previous methods of testing (that you admit were not very great apparently), discredits the scientific method. So, until another system is provided, that is as good as, or better than critical thinking and the scientific method, I frankly don't care. I'm sorry that it was likely established by the evil white man and western society (though I'm fairly confident it was a collaboration of multiple cultures, but possibly refined by western culture to it's most recent iteration) , but again, that doesn't make it's findings and efficacy invalid.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
266
219
48
Country
United Kingdom
......wow. Ok so, please present the better method for establishing truth from fiction, than critical analysis and scientific evaluation.
So what I'm trying to present here (which is not really my area, so make allowances for my limitations) is a postcolonial critique of science. Postcolonial theory is a critical theory, that means it is a form of theory which derives from critical analysis.

Do you think that the methods for establishing truth should be above criticism? Even if the result is itself a fiction?

I mean, the point about white colonialism aside, you do understand that those ancient white scientist conquerors you are describing, could be both complete assholes when dealing with other cultures, AND also happen to have the better method of evaluating claims on the natural world right?
How would you know?

I mean, here's a random example. India has a monsoon season, right. Before British rule, Indians had built up this massive body of local knowledge about the monsoon and about how to utilize it in agriculture. Pre-colonial India had these incredibly sophisticated and quite ancient systems and technologies for managing water, which we can still find archaeological evidence of today.

So, when the British colonial administration came in, the responsibility for water management increasingly became the responsibility of the British educated intermediate class, who are taught to view systems of local knowledge as archaic, traditional and superstitious. This is one of the main reasons why you have these horrific famines constantly during the period of British rule, because British people literally could not countenance the possibility that Indian peasants might understand water conservation better than they did.

The assumption that white people just have a better system for understanding the world isn't actually demonstrable in history, because even white white people clearly and obviously didn't have a better system, even when their knowledge completely broke down, they still destroyed any indigenous system of knowledge they encountered on the unevidenced assumption that theirs was better. They actively resisted the mere possibility of a countervailing system of knowledge that might put their colonial subjects on the same intellectual footing as themselves.

That hierarchical arrangement of knowledge is not an accidental property of science, it's not that white people came up with this amazing, inclusive system but unfortunately they were just randomly dicks. It's not a coincidence that ideas about mastering nature and creating universal forms of value arise around the time of European exploration of the Americas and the first interaction with its indigenous inhabitants.

And even if we indulge the premise that they did actually have a superior system of knowledge. So what? Again, why are we indulging the assumption that interaction between culturally specific systems of knowledge is the thunderdome and only one can emerge victorious. Do you genuinely believe that there was nothing to be gained or learned from encountering an alternate system of knowledge, and that the only solution was violent subjugation and destruction?

See, here's the thing, you say "hey there were other methods of study." Ok, great, present them.
I can't. They're fucking dead.

That's what epistemicide means.

It's easy to sit here and say "oh, but we're so much more civilized now, of course we could enter into equitable dialogue with countervailing system of knowledge without replicating colonial violence" because you'll never have to do it. The hard, bloody work has already been done for you. Also, once again, why is this the fucking thunderdome? Why does any exchange of ideas between differing knowledge systems always have to end in one being destroyed? Could it have something to do with the fact that you still need your knowledge system to be universal, and that necessitates the destruction of all alternatives.

But sure, look how much you've grown.

As to the comment about darwinian evolution of the system of studying the world, well yes, it pretty much does work that way. Methods are presented, used, and tested for their efficacy. If they don't measure up, they are discarded.
No.

Just no.

That is not how the history of science works at all.

Earlier, you asked me to present a better method for distinguishing truth and fiction. The answer I will give you now is this. Actually put into practice the things you claim to believe. Do not tell lies simply because they are reassuring or comforting. Embrace hard truths even when it is difficult. That is the secular heroism of critique, have courage to exercise your own reason even when it is hard, even when it is uncomfortable, even when it yields no easy answers or makes the world frightening and complex.

Science never defeated those countervailing systems of knowledge which were destroyed to make room for it to appear universal. They were destroyed by force, by violence, by coercion. You're correct that that said violence cannot be undone (although I don't understand why you didn't take that exact point from my previous post and still seem to think I'm proposing any kind of easy solution) but it can be acknowledged, if nothing else because it represents the possibility of an unresolved bias.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
1,717
799
118
Do you think that the methods for establishing truth should be above criticism? Even if the result is itself a fiction?
No, I'm saying fucking PRESENT the other method that disproves it. Otherwise your just babbling about possibilities and what ifs. If your method is actually shown to be more effective, guess what, it will be adopted as the better model, just like humanity has done since the dawn of time.

How would you know?

I mean, here's a random example. India has a monsoon season, right. Before British rule, Indians had built up this massive body of local knowledge about the monsoon and about how to utilize it in agriculture. Pre-colonial India had these incredibly sophisticated and quite ancient systems and technologies for managing water, which we can still find archaeological evidence of today.

So, when the British colonial administration came in, the responsibility for water management increasingly became the responsibility of the British educated intermediate class, who are taught to view systems of local knowledge as archaic, traditional and superstitious. This is one of the main reasons why you have these horrific famines constantly during the period of British rule, because British people literally could not countenance the possibility that Indian peasants might understand water conservation better than they did.
Good job, you've realized that humans can be assholes and bigots, and not let actual evaluation of methods used dictate policy. That doesn't discount the scientific fucking method. All you've shown, with this example, is that humans can be assholes, and will sometimes let their biases blind them to a method that might actually be better. But that's just an agricultural system, not the scientific method itself. I guarantee you those Indians established that superior method by observing their environment, testing methods, and using the ones that were most effective, and improved on them as well. Good job! That's how the scientific method works. The fact that some racists Brits thought they knew better, and didn't actually test anything only shows that people are racists.

That hierarchical arrangement of knowledge is not an accidental property of science, it's not that white people came up with this amazing, inclusive system but unfortunately they were just randomly dicks. It's not a coincidence that ideas about mastering nature and creating universal forms of value arise around the time of European exploration of the Americas and the first interaction with its indigenous inhabitants.

And even if we indulge the premise that they did actually have a superior system of knowledge. So what? Again, why are we indulging the assumption that interaction between culturally specific systems of knowledge is the thunderdome and only one can emerge victorious. Do you genuinely believe that there was nothing to be gained or learned from encountering an alternate system of knowledge, and that the only solution was violent subjugation and destruction?
I've never said it needs to be some violent "thunderdome", thats all on you. But if the goal, is having a method to observe the universe around us, and determine facts about it to the best possible accuracy we can, then we SHOULD use whatever system is shown to have the best track record of actually doing that. And hey, if it's some other method besides the scientific method of observation, testing, and refinement, great!! Show it! Present it! Until then, I'm not going to bother considering some as yet presented system. Just like I'm not going to believe in the easter bunny, the loch ness monster, or santa, until there is some actual evidence to show they are real.
I can't. They're fucking dead.

That's what epistemicide means..
You're right, they are, so appealing to some extinct methods of theoretical superiority serve no purpose and are just wasting time. If they truly were better, then it is a tragedy that they were lost. But we live in the world without them, so we have to do with what we have.

Earlier, you asked me to present a better method for distinguishing truth and fiction. The answer I will give you now is this. Actually put into practice the things you claim to believe. Do not tell lies simply because they are reassuring or comforting. Embrace hard truths even when it is difficult. That is the secular heroism of critique, have courage to exercise your own reason even when it is hard, even when it is uncomfortable, even when it yields no easy answers or makes the world frightening and complex.
......this is ridiculous. That is not a method of determining fact from fiction. That's some religiousy sounding, cliche platitudes, not an actual METHOD to figure out if Data Point X is true/false.


You can believe whatever you want, you can claim that extinct methods of data analysis are/were better than the scientific method. I frankly don't care, but I'm not going to take any findings you make with that system, with any level of credulity, until you've actually shown that it's more effective than the tool we have.

And I'm officially done with this thread.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
266
219
48
Country
United Kingdom
No, I'm saying fucking PRESENT the other method that disproves it.
That's really not how this works.

If your method is actually shown to be more effective, guess what, it will be adopted as the better model, just like humanity has done since the dawn of time.
Citation needed.

I guarantee you those Indians established that superior method by observing their environment, testing methods, and using the ones that were most effective, and improved on them as well. Good job! That's how the scientific method works.
Again, it demonstrably, historically is not how the scientific method works.

We are literally doing an Anselm here. You have decided that science is simply the best method of determining truth, and that the proof of having reached the truth is power over nature. Thus that any method of obtaining power over nature becomes de facto scientific. But that isn't actually how science works. Again, the goal of science historically (and in large part in the present as well) is not simply to gain power over nature, but to gain power over nature by reducing nature to a system of universal principles. Particular or culturally specific systems of knowledge (meaning, historically, systems of knowledge not produced by white people) cannot be scientific. They are, almost by definition, not universal but particular.

Now, that's a bit unfair. It's kind of unfair of me to equate your understanding of science in the present with the extremely racist historical understanding of science practiced by colonialists. But I think there are questions you're not asking yourself here. It's clear that you think of science not as a specific cultural practice developed by a handful of white intellectuals and grounded in principles borrowed wholesale from Christian theology, but as a kind of culturally non-specific universal knowledge.

Why does that culturally non-specific system of perfectly universal knowledge line up exactly with a culturally specific practice developed by a handful of white intellectuals and grounded in principles borrowed wholesale from Christian theology?

I've never said it needs to be some violent "thunderdome", thats all on you.
Again, not only have you defended the idea of iterative knowledge as a Darwinian struggle in which only superior forms of knowledge will survive, you literally opened this post by demanding that I disprove your entire worldview or concede defeat. We are really not as opposed as you think we are, and if you cannot conceive of even this most minor and trivial of criticisms as anything but an intellectual duel in which one of us must destroy the other, what do you think that says?

I've noticed this several times now in this thread, and it's becoming weird. I literally work in critical theory. If I'm critical of Western modernity, it is because Western modernity created an instituted a practice of criticism to which I am utterly indebted (and which is, arguably, equally complicit in epistemicide). I really don't think I'm introducing some alien discourse here, the criticisms I'm making are all, to my mind, rooted in the same intellectual tradition we're supposedly discussing. Why is it impossible to tolerate even the most meaningless concession, even if it means acknowledging a historical truth?

That's what we're doing, right? We're pursuing truth.

......this is ridiculous. That is not a method of determining fact from fiction. That's some religiousy sounding, cliche platitudes, not an actual METHOD to figure out if Data Point X is true/false.
Dude, I literally quoted from Kant.

All I'm saying is, distorting the truth in order to preserve the exceptional and unique value of Western knowledge kind of goes against the entire foundation of what that knowledge actually teaches, and what makes it valuable and worth preserving at all. Kant was a racist dick who thought black people had oil in their brains, but despite his many flaws he was onto something. To engage in the search for truth sometimes does require a little courage.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: McElroy

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
214
79
33
Well 1 election + 1 electron each fired 1 at a time at two slit with the observation being the impact area behind the slits. When non observed they each would go through both slits. When we observe to see what happens at the slits the electrons would only go through 1 slit each. Thus 2 electrons can act seemingly as 4 or 2.
That is really not how it works.

If you don't understand Quantum mechanics, don't bring it as example.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,154
197
68
Country
USA
So what I'm trying to present here (which is not really my area, so make allowances for my limitations) is a postcolonial critique of science. Postcolonial theory is a critical theory, that means it is a form of theory which derives from critical analysis.

Do you think that the methods for establishing truth should be above criticism? Even if the result is itself a fiction?
Critical theory does not encompass all criticism. You can levy criticism at something from many perspectives. Your criticism, the criticism that comes from critical theory, is specifically from the perspective of determining how structures, that is to say systems and constructs deliberately implemented by people, serve to empower some groups over others.

Methods for establishing truth should not be above criticism, but they should absolutely be above that specific criticism. Because that specific criticism is backwards nonsense. You're not looking at science and analyzing the faults or limitations. That's not what critical theory does. Critical theory says "Hey, the scientific revolution coincides with the historical period of European dominance. That probably means science is structurally designed to enable white supremacy. Now let's contrive the shallowest explanation we can as to why."
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
214
79
33
How would you use the scientific method to find biases?
Design the experiments accordingly.

Change experimentators. Do blind/double blind studies. Stuff like that.

Erasing bias is a concern in science and lot of effort is spent on it. Often successfully like everytime when earlier results get abandoned after refined, repeated, more bias-proof studies. But the idea is not nearly as complicated.

It sounds like you're equating the scientific method with any form of secular critical practice here, which for someone who thinks modern philosophy is "useless" is incredibly weird
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Do the mental constructs of mathematics actually correspond to real things, or is it a closed logical system with no basis in reality
Who cares ?

At least in my country math is not actually considered a science. Mainly because of that. Mathematicians are happy either way and scientists use it as a useful tool without implysing some deeper truth.

But you cannot even adequately define science without referencing the philosophy of science. The idea that philosophers don't understand science is genuinely ludicrous.
Yes, science started out as natural philosophy. That doesn't mean that modern day philosophers understand science or modern day scientists understand philosophy. There are centuries of divergent development.

Because it is a problem or contradiction requiring the work of criticism and intellectual labour to resolve (in fact, it will in all likelihood never be permanently resolved). That's what a crisis, in the philosophical sense, means.

A crisis does not mean a sudden disaster, it does not mean people wailing or rending their clothes in the street. In an extremely oversimplified fashion, it means living in a world which does not make sense. The reason it's called the crisis of modernity is because modernity is an inherently incoherent state. It's not painful or distressing to live in an incoherent world, it's not a disaster, it just means never actually being able to substantiate the things that you believe.
It is not a problem anyone outside philosophy cares about. There is just no sense of incoherence. Science is not about universal truth and children already learn that in school at an age of ~15.

Again, if science as a discipline is continuously iterating and progressing towards this point of hypothetical (and possibly unreachable) perfect knowledge when all flaws and inconsistencies have been ironed out, then how can you actually guarantee that that point of knowledge is perfect? How can you guarantee it is more truthful? Again, how do you use science to prove the capacity of science to even draw closer to truth?
You can't. And that is OK. As for getting closer, that is what predictions and results are for. The better those match, the closer you are presumably. And if, by chance, you took a wrong direction, you are bound to find out eventually.

You say that science is capable of resolving its own biases. If this perception of advancing truthfulness was the result of bias, how would you actually know?
By finding a better model that is less biased, designing experiments to find out which of them is more right and doing those experiments.
There is no point in attempting to reduce nature to universals unless you believe nature can be reduced to universals.
Doesn't hurt to try. And the result is useful. Basically it is the same as with math. You can't prove the axioms and know it is not just nonsense, but it sure is useful enough in practice to pursue it.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
1,381
697
118
Country
USA
No, I'm saying fucking PRESENT the other method that disproves it. Otherwise your just babbling about possibilities and what ifs. If your method is actually shown to be more effective, guess what, it will be adopted as the better model, just like humanity has done since the dawn of time.
If good ideas naturally won out every time, the Catholic church and conservative politics would have ceased to exist a long time ago.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
1,408
127
68
Country
United Kingdom
That is really not how it works.

If you don't understand Quantum mechanics, don't bring it as example.

I love how you just say I'm wrong but you can't explain why. How very Trumpian of you. yeh, Yeh acts as wave not a particle if you want to be absolutely specific about it but they still go register as going through different number of slots


Critical theory does not encompass all criticism. You can levy criticism at something from many perspectives. Your criticism, the criticism that comes from critical theory, is specifically from the perspective of determining how structures, that is to say systems and constructs deliberately implemented by people, serve to empower some groups over others.

Methods for establishing truth should not be above criticism, but they should absolutely be above that specific criticism. Because that specific criticism is backwards nonsense. You're not looking at science and analyzing the faults or limitations. That's not what critical theory does. Critical theory says "Hey, the scientific revolution coincides with the historical period of European dominance. That probably means science is structurally designed to enable white supremacy. Now let's contrive the shallowest explanation we can as to why."
Fun fact:

Critical Theory in it's proper form is meant to be about improving social science by encouraging people to step back and be critical of their own results and conclusions by outlining how their ideas could be wrong or potential other reasoning's for the things they're observing. Problem is that seems to be have forgotten by many in said fields and applied as Critical Theory = we have to criticise every other field and they have to accept it as true no matter what because we say it is.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
214
79
33
yeh, Yeh acts as wave not a particle if you want to be absolutely specific about it but they still go register as going through different number of slots
That is not the point.

Your experiment is about (not) knowing, which way the electrons take. But then you take all places where they could be or are to a certain point and add them to get a total number. But a particle number and a partcle location are very different things and different kinds of uncertainties and symmetries belong to them. In fact, in your experiment there are always only two electrons. Never more, never less. No matter at how many places you could find one (of course you will not find two in the same state as they are fermions). You can take your electron distribution at any time, derive the particle density and integrate over it and it will only ever be 2 electrons.

To get an unknown number of electrons that could be four, you need a second quantisation. But then you can't use the same kind of wave functions anymore and have to use quantum field mechanics instead which is a hassle and not a good description for your experiment anyway.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
1,408
127
68
Country
United Kingdom
That is not the point.

Your experiment is about (not) knowing, which way the electrons take. But then you take all places where they could be or are to a certain point and add them to get a total number. But a particle number and a partcle location are very different things and different kinds of uncertainties and symmetries belong to them. In fact, in your experiment there are always only two electrons. Never more, never less. No matter at how many places you could find one (of course you will not find two in the same state as they are fermions). You can take your electron distribution at any time, derive the particle density and integrate over it and it will only ever be 2 electrons.

To get an unknown number of electrons that could be four, you need a second quantisation. But then you can't use the same kind of wave functions anymore and have to use quantum field mechanics instead which is a hassle and not a good description for your experiment anyway.
Are you confusing the problem of knowing electron location with the double slit experiment?

Here's the question.

How do we know there are only 2 electrons?

We perceive only 2 because that is our perception of the world as is but there are 4 there in reality but 2 are in states we can't perceive?

This is where the Red Dwarf clip I keep showing comes into play and the issue of perspective.


Because you can see the head you know there's at least 2 but what if there are more behind that one? What if you couldn't see the head? That is where the argument of perception comes from. We only perceive the world one way and yet we have results that suggest stuff we can't yet truly perceive E.G. Dark matter that is theorised to makes up a lot of the "missing" mass of the universe etc .
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
214
79
33
How do we know there are only 2 electrons?

We perceive only 2 because that is our perception of the world as is but there are 4 there in reality but 2 are in states we can't perceive?
- Because if they were more, they would inteact with each other, which could be seen.

- Because we measured the number at the beginning of the experiment. And until we do something that invalidates the earlier measuremnt, the number is fixed. Cosider it similar to a Schrödinger cat where one actually looked and found out it is dead. It won't spontaniously come back to life anymore.


Because you can see the head you know there's at least 2 but what if there are more behind that one? What if you couldn't see the head? That is where the argument of perception comes from. We only perceive the world one way and yet we have results that suggest stuff we can't yet truly perceive E.G. Dark matter that is theorised to makes up a lot of the "missing" mass of the universe etc .
That is a completely differnt topic that has nothing to do with the details of measuremnts and observers in quantum mechanics. I don't change the number of ducks by conting them here.
The main component of "perception" in the quantum mechanical sense is that observer and observed inteact and change each other. That information can't be produced, only transferred. That completely understanding and knowing the original can't be done without completely destroying the original because there can't be any information left in the original.
 
Last edited:

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
1,408
127
68
Country
United Kingdom
- Because if they were more, they would inteact with each other, which could be seen.
What if they do but we can't yet see it?

- Because we measured the number at the beginning of the experiment. And until we do something that invalidates the earlier measuremnt, the number is fixed. Cosider it similar to a Schrödinger cat where one actually looked and found out it is dead. It won't spontaniously come back to life anymore.
We can only measure based on out perception of reality and what we know so far.
As I said we can only operate based on the perception of reality we presently experience (well most people experience)

That is a completely differnt topic that has nothing to do with the details of measuremnts and observers in quantum mechanics. I don't change the number of ducks by conting them here.
The main component of "perception" in the quantum mechanical sense is that observer and observed inteact and change each other. That information can't be produced, only transferred. That completely understanding and knowing the original can't be done without completely destroying the original because there can't be any information left in the original.
Ah but you do change the perceived number of ducks by your positioning.

We see the world in 3D and can be said to move through 4D (Time) in 1 direction. Suppose we saw 4D fully and could truly perceive it more wouldn't that not change out perception greatly? How about 5D where reality itself could be seen?

We can only work based on our perception and that is the argument being put forward. That's why I agree with you, we can only work based on what we can measure and observe using our present perceptions but the argument of others in this thread is Science is problematic because other stuff may be real but we can't perceive it because of the present perceptions we have. Which again I argue we can only use our present perceptions not theoretical other perceptions to claim something could be valid.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
214
79
33
What if they do but we can't yet see it?
How could that be ?
We can only measure based on out perception of reality and what we know so far.
As I said we can only operate based on the perception of reality we presently experience (well most people experience)
That is not how quantum systems work. Measuring something and getting a result means you confirm that you are in a reality where that result is true, in some sense change the reality to make that result true.
Ah but you do change the perceived number of ducks by your positioning.
Not the perceived number, the actual number. If i see a duck more/less, than there suddenly is a duck more/less and everyone else checking, even if looking from another angle, will see the same number of ducks. The number of ducks is only unknown, even unknowable, until i count it.

That would be how quantum mechanics would work.

We see the world in 3D and can be said to move through 4D (Time) in 1 direction. Suppose we saw 4D fully and could truly perceive it more wouldn't that not change out perception greatly?
Yes, that would do fun stuff with causality. What do you mean with 5D and reality itself ? I am not aware of any popular 5D model. And no, you can't project 4D curved space into 5d plane space in the way it is often done between 2D and 3D.

We can only work based on our perception and that is the argument being put forward. That's why I agree with you, we can only work based on what we can measure and observe using our present perceptions but the argument of others in this thread is Science is problematic because other stuff may be real but we can't perceive it because of the present perceptions we have. Which again I argue we can only use our present perceptions not theoretical other perceptions to claim something could be valid.
If you just want to highlight limits of perception, no problem. There lots of limits and those limit out understanding as well.

I just object to you drawing examples from quantum mechanics and using them in the wrong way. If you had just talked about those ducks with a classical understanding of what observation means, that would have been fine. But no, you needed to talk about quantum effects of electrons and are now talking about dimensions.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
1,408
127
68
Country
United Kingdom
How could that be ?
Dark Matter Electrons? Who knows.

That is not how quantum systems work. Measuring something and getting a result means you confirm that you are in a reality where that result is true, in some sense change the reality to make that result true.
Not the perceived number, the actual number. If i see a duck more/less, than there suddenly is a duck more/less and everyone else checking, even if looking from another angle, will see the same number of ducks. The number of ducks is only unknown, even unknowable, until i count it.
That would be how quantum mechanics would work.
Ah but all actuality is perception. Is our perception of colours more or less valid than that of animals who can also see IR and other wave lengths. To us we see film as motion to many bird it's a slow slideshow.

As I said with the example though it's about perception. If you could only see from one angle and everyone else counting only from one angle you'd have to accept that as the reality.

Yes, that would do fun stuff with causality. What do you mean with 5D and reality itself ? I am not aware of any popular 5D model. And no, you can't project 4D curved space into 5d plane space in the way it is often done between 2D and 3D.

Well reality itself could be determined as the possible paths things could take a flip of a coin becoming heads or tails each creating their own reality time would still exist in them the true argument is if time is a circle, a series of circles or a line.

If you just want to highlight limits of perception, no problem. There lots of limits and those limit out understanding as well.

I just object to you drawing examples from quantum mechanics and using them in the wrong way. If you had just talked about those ducks with a classical understanding of what observation means, that would have been fine. But no, you needed to talk about quantum effects of electrons and are now talking about dimensions.
Well it's one of the easier ways to show the limits.