Real Scientific Slapstick
- Wu Li
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: June 5th, 2018, 2:31 am
Real Scientific Slapstick
For example, physicists struggled for years to simulate a Mott transition from quantum mechanical to classical, only to be confused when the results contradicted all of their theories and calculations. The results indicated that the Big Bang was neither too hot nor too cold, but just right for the physicists to take their measurements. Instead of seeing the humor in the situation, the physicists shrugged their shoulders and said it might require years or decades to figure out how a Goldilocks universe works. Donald Hoffman is a game theorist who spent ten years studying all the neurological evidence and running one computer simulation after another, only to conclude that if the human mind and brain had resembled anything like reality, we would already be extinct as a species. Mr Hoffman had no clue what it could mean, but said it must be related to quantum mechanics. These are two of the more striking research results, but the list goes on and on including mathematicians establishing in a number of ways that classical logic and physics appear to be tautological and self-contradictory.
The physicists who measured the Goldilocks universe were not stupid, and its extremely difficult for me to believe for one second that it would normally be impossible for them to get the punch line to a joke like that. The first quantifiable theory of humor has established that it involves anything low in entropy suggesting that, for some reason, the physicists were not perceiving the low entropy of what they were observing. That others can perceive the humor from a distance and that the slapstick is so flawless suggests that the identity of what is reality and fiction is becoming conflated, and the researcher's own interest in looking for causal explanations is determining what they perceive. As if their lives are becoming more fated the instant they probe the nature of reality too closely, because they are looking for answers that nature cannot provide.
This could explain the Quantum Observer Effect and why Relativity contains the glaring Simultaneity Paradox as related to the lowest possible energy state and the default state, or yin-yang dynamics and the Two Faces of Janus, making the dreamer and the dream ultimately indistinguishable. Reality and logic are what help to make the dream possible and lend it vastly more beauty and meaning. Any feedback is welcome, but this involves fuzzy logic and quantum mechanics and I'm not looking for any sort of metaphysical explanation, but a systems logics view that reflects Indeterminacy as being the default and the ground state, expressing yin-yang push-pull dynamics and the Two Faces Janus.
- Mark1955
- Posts: 739
- Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
- Location: Nottingham, England.
Re: Real Scientific Slapstick
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Real Scientific Slapstick
Your script lacks the rigour that only knowledge can give. You go with the thrust of writing something funny and witty, so funny and witty that it will defy any challenge by logical thinkers. You borrowed a few terms from physics, possibly in a Google search; you cite experts that cater to a very narrow stratum of society, and I would not be surprised if the experts you cite were preachers in Southern Baptist congregations or similar.
This impotent attempt of yours to debunk science is an old hat, and you are one transparent ignorant person who thinks that because things don't make sense to him or her, things must be stupid.
Again...
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Real Scientific Slapstick
You mention the physics use. Much more useful for her or him to have to challenge the specific example, explain what he or she needs to do, did wrong, is confused about, etc.-1- wrote: ↑June 17th, 2018, 5:38 am Wu Li, not understanding a lot of stuff does not mean that those who produce the stuff are fools. It may just be the other way around.
Your script lacks the rigour that only knowledge can give. You go with the thrust of writing something funny and witty, so funny and witty that it will defy any challenge by logical thinkers. You borrowed a few terms from physics, possibly in a Google search; you cite experts that cater to a very narrow stratum of society, and I would not be surprised if the experts you cite were preachers in Southern Baptist congregations or similar.
This impotent attempt of yours to debunk science is an old hat, and you are one transparent ignorant person who thinks that because things don't make sense to him or her, things must be stupid.
Again...
Unless the goal is simply to label the other person, which is unlikely to lead to change/learning/an exchange.
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Real Scientific Slapstick
Karpal, you are right. Your idea is superb.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑June 17th, 2018, 6:39 amYou mention the physics use. Much more useful for her or him to have to challenge the specific example, explain what he or she needs to do, did wrong, is confused about, etc.-1- wrote: ↑June 17th, 2018, 5:38 am Wu Li, not understanding a lot of stuff does not mean that those who produce the stuff are fools. It may just be the other way around.
Your script lacks the rigour that only knowledge can give. You go with the thrust of writing something funny and witty, so funny and witty that it will defy any challenge by logical thinkers. You borrowed a few terms from physics, possibly in a Google search; you cite experts that cater to a very narrow stratum of society, and I would not be surprised if the experts you cite were preachers in Southern Baptist congregations or similar.
This impotent attempt of yours to debunk science is an old hat, and you are one transparent ignorant person who thinks that because things don't make sense to him or her, things must be stupid.
Again...
Unless the goal is simply to label the other person, which is unlikely to lead to change/learning/an exchange.
Go do it.
(I.e. why tell me what to do, when you are just as capable of doing it as I?)
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Real Scientific Slapstick
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Real Scientific Slapstick
I didn't 'tell you to do it'. I gave my opinion about what would be more useful, given your position on what he wrote in his post. It was my critical opinion of your approach, in this case to a post I did not have any interest in responding to. I tried to make my post an example of what I meant, and I figure it is useful if people are encouraged to do what I think leads to more fruitful discussions. I thought that was more important. Thanks for thinking it is a superb position to take. Perhaps it will be more your habit in the future.-1- wrote: ↑June 19th, 2018, 2:45 amKarpal, you are right. Your idea is superb.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑June 17th, 2018, 6:39 am
You mention the physics use. Much more useful for her or him to have to challenge the specific example, explain what he or she needs to do, did wrong, is confused about, etc.
Unless the goal is simply to label the other person, which is unlikely to lead to change/learning/an exchange.
Go do it.
(I.e. why tell me what to do, when you are just as capable of doing it as I?)
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Real Scientific Slapstick
Good strategy, but despicable as are all Strawman fallacy arguments.
What I did was I asked you a question, which was not an imperative. It was a question.
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Real Scientific Slapstick
You asked me
that presumes I told you what to do.why tell me what to do
Questions can contain assertions/assumptions.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023