stupid scientists and the discovery of dark matter

[jedibrat]

its very funny..   mr atheist wittgenstein was so right when he said that there are no philosophical problems... and this is such a strong truth in the reality that is God.  "its philosophers who muddle the waters"

The later Wittgenstein promoted a therapeutic end for philosophy, to reverse the bewitchment of intellect by the vagaries of language, meaning he probably would have shirked at empirical (scientific) absolutism. Philosophy isn't dead, our short-sighted culture only considers our near contemporaries and it will be centuries before we appreciate the significance of Wittgenstein.

[wavelength]

it has come down on itself, name one recent philosophical argument that has any huge impact on human thought?

i would side to a certain extent with pragmatism, logic is not adequate to explain reality, what don't you get about that?

you never assert anything, you don't even make arguments, you skirt about topics because you have no substance. Asking questions with no value like what is space?

tell me the answer? tell me why that question matters?

dualism is done, its a retarded philosophy.

do you believe in dualism? in immaterial things, the word thing is self refuting for this concept but for the sake of the pseudo intellectuals out there lets consider it a valid question.

The dualism issue ("material" and "immaterial") has been discussed to death in the original thread. There is no need for dualism for the topic at hand. Doesn't make sense to repeat everything here once again, it has been repeated over and over there.

Of course questions like "what is space" are of value. You can argue that you are not interested in them since they cannot be tackled by science. One philosophic conclusion about space and time was e.g. that they are the pure forms of human perception (Kant, "Kritik der reinen Vernunft").

[Necrosis]

The dualism issue ("material" and "immaterial") has been discussed to death in the original thread. There is no need for dualism for the topic at hand. Doesn't make sense to repeat everything here once again, it has been repeated over and over there.

Of course questions like "what is space" are of value. You can argue that you are not interested in them since they cannot be tackled by science. One philosophic conclusion about space and time was e.g. that they are the pure forms of human perception (Kant, "Kritik der reinen Vernunft").

ok, what the hell is he basing this conclusion off? why would space made of material be a pure form of perception? why not water, why not rocks?

it's a untestable, un-provable position thus its pointless.

[wavelength]

ok, what the hell is he basing this conclusion off? why would space made of material be a pure form of perception? why not water, why not rocks?

it's a untestable, un-provable position thus its pointless.

It's a philosophic deduction, a few hundred pages long. Very interesting and challenging to read.
Using scientific testability as an argument against philosophy is self-contradicting as shown in the original thread:

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.msg2780852#msg2780852
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.msg2783709#msg2783709
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.msg2786207#msg2786207

[MAXX]

question:

why are a bunch of weightlifting meatheads on a bodybuilding forum discussing highly advance space science.


I'm sure NASA would love your input on these kind of things 

[stuntmovie]

I is too dumb to read all this dark matter stuff ...... but I found a 'simple explanation' (see below) and I are still to darn dumb to understand it. I'll just stick with Quantum Mechanics until I smarten up a bit.

DARK MATTER for Dummies:  When the Universe was young, it was nearly smooth and featureless. As it grew older and developed, it became organized. We know that our solar system is organized into planets (including the Earth!) orbiting around the Sun. On a scale much larger than the solar system (about 100 million times larger!), stars collect themselves into galaxies. Our Sun is an average star in an average galaxy called the Milky Way. The Milky Way contains about 100 billion stars. Yes, that's 100,000,000,000 stars! On still larger scales, individual galaxies are concentrated into groups, or what astronomers call clusters of galaxies.

An overlay of an optical image of a cluster of galaxies with an x-ray image of hot gas lying within the cluster

The cluster includes the galaxies and any material which is in the space between the galaxies. The force, or glue, that holds the cluster together is gravity -- the mutual attraction of everything in the Universe for everything else. The space between galaxies in clusters is filled with a hot gas. In fact, the gas is so hot (tens of millions of degrees!) that it shines in X-rays instead of visible light. In the image above, the hot X-ray gas (shown in pink) lying between the galaxies is superimposed on an an optical picture of the cluster of galaxies. By studying the distribution and temperature of the hot gas we can measure how much it is being squeezed by the force of gravity from all the material in the cluster. This allows scientists to determine how much total material (matter) there is in that part of space.

Remarkably, it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible. This invisible stuff is called 'dark matter', a term initially coined by Fritz Zwicky who discovered evidence for missing mass in galaxies in the 1930s. There is currently much ongoing research by scientists attempting to discover exactly what this dark matter is, how much there is, and what effect it may have on the future of the Universe as a whole.

[Tapeworm]

ok, what the hell is he basing this conclusion off? why would space made of material be a pure form of perception? why not water, why not rocks?

it's a untestable, un-provable position thus its pointless.

My understanding is that it's not so much a Milesian question of elemental substance.  It's simply that the existence of an object with x-y-z dimensions presupposes that there is space in which the object exists.  Eliminate the canvas and you've eliminated the painting.  Similarly, motion, or just continued stationary existence, couldn't occur without time.  Therefore, time exists.

Kant should have hired me.  I would have saved him a fortune in quills.

[MindSpin]

T, either you on some good shit, or you need to go to sleep...either way, email this to those PhDs at Berkerley so that they can have a good laugh...

lol

[tbombz]

sure, give me some of the arguments you think prove a magical nessecity? Ever think that maybe we know more about reality now, or are you saying they had all the answers.

I am unaware of any philosophical argument for god that is not ripe with logical fallacies and unfounded assumptions. Give me some.

didnt quantum physics just prove that particles can 'pop' into existence, out of nothing..  thats magic 

doesnt the big bang theory prove that the entire universe suddenly appeared out of nothing thats magic

doesnt the idea of a solid particle prove that there must be some kind of energy holding it together, and that there must have been some kind of original conceptual design in order for anything at all to have ever developed?    where did the original design come from? 



argument for god free of logical fallacies... ok..  any piece of matter is by definition infinitely divisible..  think about it.. what does that tell you ...






that solid particles actually dont exist at all   

 

[tbombz]

My understanding is that it's not so much a Milesian question of elemental substance.  It's simply that the existence of an object with x-y-z dimensions presupposes that there is space in which the object exists.  Eliminate the canvas and you've eliminated the painting.  Similarly, motion, or just continued stationary existence, couldn't occur without time.  Therefore, time exists.

badda big badda booom



modern scientists are fuckin stuuuuuuuuupid

[stuntmovie]

I don't agree with your 'stupid scientists' arguments but you said that 'solid particles actually dont exist at all' .....

And that is precisely how DANCING WU LI MASTERS (Basic QM) concludes.

[Necrosis]

badda big badda booom



modern scientists are fuckin stuuuuuuuuupid

so things can onlyh exist in time is the logical conclusion of that argument, therefore eternity cannot exist. However, something has to exist which its essence is for it to exist, because nothing cannot create something therefore something always was, eternity must exist.

Oh wait, thats aquinas and random babble bullshit, things pop into existence from nothing in quantum mechanics, i geuss that argument fails.

[Necrosis]

didnt quantum physics just prove that particles can 'pop' into existence, out of nothing..  thats magic 

nothing magical about it, not sure why you assume it;s magical

doesnt the big bang theory prove that the entire universe suddenly appeared out of nothing thats magic

 

no it says nothing about that, it says that a point of infinite mass and density expanded rapidly. Sigularities are problems in math fyi not real occurences.

it says nothign about what was before the big bang, it could be cycles of big bangs and collapses. Bubbles of universes creating others all kinds of things, you are jumping to one wild assumption.

doesnt the idea of a solid particle prove that there must be some kind of energy holding it together, and that there must have been some kind of original conceptual design in order for anything at all to have ever developed?    where did the original design come from? 



argument for god free of logical fallacies... ok..  any piece of matter is by definition infinitely divisible..  think about it.. what does that tell you ...






that solid particles actually dont exist at all   

 

matter is not infinitely divisible, string theory may discover the base particles. Are you arguing that concepts exist before matter? yet concepts can only exist with a brain no? how can you have conceptual design without a mind?

[tbombz]

nothing magical about it, not sure why you assume it;s magical

no it says nothing about that, it says that a point of infinite mass and density expanded rapidly. Sigularities are problems in math fyi not real occurences.

it says nothign about what was before the big bang, it could be cycles of big bangs and collapses. Bubbles of universes creating others all kinds of things, you are jumping to one wild assumption.

matter is not infinitely divisible, string theory may discover the base particles. Are you arguing that concepts exist before matter? yet concepts can only exist with a brain no? how can you have conceptual design without a mind?

either things pop into exist magically, or they dont.  you cant have it both ways. pick one, and then follow it to its logical conclusion. either way... 

if you cant accept the infinite divisibilty of matter then....... your just not being honest with yourself? or maybe you really arent so smart after all?


if something exists. it can be measured. if something has a measurement, that measurement can be divided in half. and again. and again. forever. 

[Tapeworm]

badda big badda booom



modern scientists are fuckin stuuuuuuuuupid

Not sure how you moved from the Kantian canvass to that conclusion but then I never was one much for book lernin'.

[wavelength]

My understanding is that it's not so much a Milesian question of elemental substance.  It's simply that the existence of an object with x-y-z dimensions presupposes that there is space in which the object exists.  Eliminate the canvas and you've eliminated the painting.  Similarly, motion, or just continued stationary existence, couldn't occur without time.  Therefore, time exists.

Kant should have hired me.  I would have saved him a fortune in quills.

I wouldn't start with the scientific properties assigned to an object by science. What is presupposed when talking about an object that exists is that, out of which this object can manifest itself. The word existence alone presupposes something like that. In any case, it is clearly a philosophic topic since space and time are fundamental to science and not explained from within.

[Necrosis]

I wouldn't start with the scientific properties assigned to an object by science. What is presupposed when talking about an object that exists is that, out of which this object can manifest itself. The word existence alone presupposes something like that. In any case, it is clearly a philosophic topic since space and time are fundamental to science and not explained from within.

you cant use outside explanations to explain something, you cant suppose something outside the universe to explain its existence. You for one can say nothing about it and pretty much open pandoras box as everything requires an exterior explanation.

science isn't assigning any properties, they are the properties which already exist, we use language to describe them if that is what you are talking about, we aren't creating anything, its already there. We are just observing and communication, observation and testing is the only true way to know something.

[Necrosis]

either things pop into exist magically, or they dont.  you cant have it both ways. pick one, and then follow it to its logical conclusion. either way... 

if you cant accept the infinite divisibilty of matter then....... your just not being honest with yourself? or maybe you really arent so smart after all?


if something exists. it can be measured. if something has a measurement, that measurement can be divided in half. and again. and again. forever. 

whats magical about it? i didnt know magic was the default position when someone doesn't know something, lmao, god of the gaps much? there are numerous theories to account for virtual particles, just because you dont know them doesn't make it magic, im sure thunder would have looked like magic to you if you lived in the 1800's but alas we know its not magic and that nothing magical has ever been found.

you are applying math to matter, numbers can be infinitely indivisible however, true infinites cannot exist its an artifact of math like a singularity. strings would be non-reducible in theory. You are combining topics and theories haphazardly into a amalgam of non-sense.

[wavelength]

you cant use outside explanations to explain something, you cant suppose something outside the universe to explain its existence. You for one can say nothing about it and pretty much open pandoras box as everything requires an exterior explanation.

science isn't assigning any properties, they are the properties which already exist, we use language to describe them if that is what you are talking about, we aren't creating anything, its already there. We are just observing and communication, observation and testing is the only true way to know something.

The "it" you are talking about in "it's already there" is the problem. Same as what is meant by "communication, observation, and testing". Philosophy also uses these methods, just in a broader sense. And a pure scientist can't say anything about what's there and what's not. The statement "it's already there" can never be scientifically tested. You are obviously a philosopher.

[Necrosis]

The "it" you are talking about in "it's already there" is the problem. Same as what is meant by "communication, observation, and testing". Philosophy also uses these methods, just in a broader sense. And a pure scientist can't say anything about what's there and what's not. The statement "it's already there" can never be scientifically tested. You are obviously a philosopher.

no, you see since the time of kant,hume we have discovered so much more about the world, paradoxs that could not even be imagined, simple logic does not work anymore, for example the universe is expanding, the logical sequence of thoughts is then into what?

the answer is nothing, then we get into a long diatribe about how can something expand into nothing, there has to be something outside the universe and other illogical quips. Math has demonstrated things that thought cannot conceive, how dont you see that?

truth is truth, the purest form of which is scientific reasoning and experimentation. It has provided more truth then philosophy ever has, you haven't even said what branch of philosophy you ascribe to. Science contains philosophy not the other way around.

[wavelength]

1.) no, you see since the time of kant,hume we have discovered so much more about the world, paradoxs that could not even be imagined, simple logic does not work anymore, for example the universe is expanding, the logical sequence of thoughts is then into what? the answer is nothing, then we get into a long diatribe about how can something expand into nothing, there has to be something outside the universe and other illogical quips. Math has demonstrated things that thought cannot conceive, how dont you see that?

2.) truth is truth, the purest form of which is scientific reasoning and experimentation.

3.) It has provided more truth then philosophy ever has,

4.) you haven't even said what branch of philosophy you ascribe to.

5.)Science contains philosophy not the other way around.

1.) The basic scientific principles aren't changed by new scientific discoveries.

2.) Can't be since this statement itself is not derived from science.

3.) Says who?

4.) Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

5.) That's exactly the error of scientific positivism which has been disproven (still unchallenged) in the linked thread.

[Necrosis]

1.) The basic scientific principles aren't changed by new scientific discoveries.

2.) Can't be since this statement itself is not derived from science.

3.) Says who?

4.) Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

5.) That's exactly the error of scientific positivism which has been disproven (still unchallenged) in the linked thread.

1) yes they can? since when has science operated in this fashion? EBM for example which is the cornerstone of research wasn't implemented for a long time in science. Relativity does not mesh with quantum mechanics, both germane to our reality. Are you in anyway involved in science? thats a very odd conjecture to make if you actually study science, in particular cosmology. Before the atom we never could of imagined how strange the world truly is, quantum entanglement challenges our beliefs about space and time, showing that two electrons remain intertwined despite distances through patterns of coherence and decoherence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

one of the things that changed the basic scientific principle of classical physics.

2) sure it is, im arguing that objectivity is more true then your experience of reality, of all of ours, subjectivity is flawed.

3) theology for example has provided nothing at all, not one argument that hasn't been debunked, maimonides arguments were claimed to be proof but as usually they suck. Science provides one with a view of objective reality, one that is much better then a flawed subjective view. It has been shown that awareness and personality are products of a material brain. Its undeniable, to think a material object can transcend itself is ridiculous. science has provided us with medicine, evolution, quantum mechanics, why the sky is blue, where does thunder come from etc..

4) i dont think so, if your claiming any thought is a philosophical one then saying that science cannot be philosophy. It shares all of its principles and the philosophy of science is a study area. Also i feel many areas of philosophy are valid as it really is logic and reason, however, theology for example is useless as is many philosophical angles.

5)i see it the other way, i read the thread i did not find your arguments convincing nor did i feel your rebuttal to mmc even made logical sense. Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy, philosophy can never contain scientific facts because of its lack of objectivity and removal of human error, what im saying is science goes beyond what philosophy can offer, while philosophy cannot do likewise.

[Reeves]

Like tbombz and other homos, it still Doesn't Matter¯®  ©2011 FuckThatNoise™   

[wavelength]

1) yes they can? since when has science operated in this fashion? EBM for example which is the cornerstone of research wasn't implemented for a long time in science. Relativity does not mesh with quantum mechanics, both germane to our reality. Are you in anyway involved in science? thats a very odd conjecture to make if you actually study science, in particular cosmology. Before the atom we never could of imagined how strange the world truly is, quantum entanglement challenges our beliefs about space and time, showing that two electrons remain intertwined despite distances through patterns of coherence and decoherence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

one of the things that changed the basic scientific principle of classical physics.

2) sure it is, im arguing that objectivity is more true then your experience of reality, of all of ours, subjectivity is flawed.

3) theology for example has provided nothing at all, not one argument that hasn't been debunked, maimonides arguments were claimed to be proof but as usually they suck. Science provides one with a view of objective reality, one that is much better then a flawed subjective view. It has been shown that awareness and personality are products of a material brain. Its undeniable, to think a material object can transcend itself is ridiculous. science has provided us with medicine, evolution, quantum mechanics, why the sky is blue, where does thunder come from etc..

4) i dont think so, if your claiming any thought is a philosophical one then saying that science cannot be philosophy. It shares all of its principles and the philosophy of science is a study area. Also i feel many areas of philosophy are valid as it really is logic and reason, however, theology for example is useless as is many philosophical angles.

5)i see it the other way, i read the thread i did not find your arguments convincing nor did i feel your rebuttal to mmc even made logical sense. Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy, philosophy can never contain scientific facts because of its lack of objectivity and removal of human error, what im saying is science goes beyond what philosophy can offer, while philosophy cannot do likewise.

The problem with all the above is that it's all philosophy and that my simple logic prove is still unchallanged. Logically prove that my deduction is wrong and I'm converted. Noone in the original thread could, including yourself. Makes no sense to reply to every argument you brought here (which I could) as long as this fact remains.

[Necrosis]

The problem with all the above is that it's all philosophy and that my simple logic prove is still unchallanged. Logically prove that my deduction is wrong and I'm converted. Noone in the original thread could, including yourself. Makes no sense to reply to every argument you brought here (which I could) as long as this fact remains.

what specific deduction?

that there is more to this world then science can examine? specifically argue for something, you are to vague.

science encompasses all that is measurable and observable, that is it.

please state it for me one more time if you dont mind, and please be specific and  make a claim that is falsifiable.