Real Scientific Slapstick

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Wu Li
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: June 5th, 2018, 2:31 am

Real Scientific Slapstick

Post by Wu Li » June 5th, 2018, 2:49 am

Sometimes, if reality is stranger than fiction, its only because there ain't no damned difference! Over the course of doing personal research, I discovered that academics were increasingly receiving pies-in-the-face from their own research results beginning with the extremes in the cognitive and physical sciences, and these were increasing in frequency and building up into an avalanche. What became obvious is they were getting results that indicate 42 is as good an explanation for the laws of physics anyone is ever going to get. However, upon closer examination of the stories it became evident that the researchers were all performing flawless slapstick, with the jokes going right over their heads no matter how patently obvious they were.

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.

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 488
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Real Scientific Slapstick

Post by Mark1955 » June 17th, 2018, 5:11 am

Surely logic requires determinacy, I cannot make an either or decision if I don't have an either or state.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Real Scientific Slapstick

Post by -1- » 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...
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 454
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Real Scientific Slapstick

Post by Karpel Tunnel » June 17th, 2018, 6:39 am

-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...
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.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Real Scientific Slapstick

Post by -1- » June 19th, 2018, 2:45 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
June 17th, 2018, 6:39 am
-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...
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.
Karpal, you are right. Your idea is superb.

Go do it.

(I.e. why tell me what to do, when you are just as capable of doing it as I?)
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Eduk
Posts: 1936
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Real Scientific Slapstick

Post by Eduk » June 19th, 2018, 3:55 am

-1- because you might learn something/change something or have a longer exchange.
Unknown means unknown.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 454
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Real Scientific Slapstick

Post by Karpel Tunnel » June 19th, 2018, 1:25 pm

-1- wrote:
June 19th, 2018, 2:45 am
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.
Karpal, you are right. Your idea is superb.

Go do it.

(I.e. why tell me what to do, when you are just as capable of doing it as I?)
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.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Real Scientific Slapstick

Post by -1- » June 20th, 2018, 11:30 pm

Karpal: I did not say you did tell me "go do it". You are putting words in my mouth.

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.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 454
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Real Scientific Slapstick

Post by Karpel Tunnel » July 9th, 2018, 10:23 pm

-1- wrote:
June 20th, 2018, 11:30 pm
Karpal: I did not say you did tell me "go do it". You are putting words in my mouth.

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.
You asked me
why tell me what to do
that presumes I told you what to do.
Questions can contain assertions/assumptions.

Post Reply