Skip to main content

Topic: The Awesomesauce of Science (Read 20466 times)

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
The Awesomesauce of Science
You are totally not paying attention. Apollo 13 is an example that science is not all-good to absolute precision the way you said. Science can go wrong. Bad science exists and it's necessary to distinguish it from the good. This is a necessary distinction. Moreover, science itself cannot make this distinction. Philosophy can.

Maybe there's no bad science, but there are bad scientists?
And please let us tell between science and application, right?

Mod edit: fixed quote.
  • Last Edit: 2014-04-30, 18:12:27 by jax

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #1
You are actually quoting me, but I am not sure you expect an answer from me.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #2
Are you sure it was you? I'll edit!

Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #3
Science ,

in latin ; Scientia = Knowledge .

Consciousness will produces science

and Science Will produces Consciousness .


  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #4
To observe is a tricky term actually. Sometimes we could think we observe something, which something could actually happen to either not be or be something else.
Science usually resorts to measuring and experiment -- to back up initial observations.:idea:

Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #5
Can anything cease to exist simply because nobody's watching? :sherlock:

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #6
Hey! probably! Can you remember a user on MyOpera named "payitfwrd" on something like that? He participated in D&D and even had an off-site email -- then he disappeared along with ALL his posts made in the Forums. Remember?:)

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #7

Can anything cease to exist simply because nobody's watching? :sherlock:
Then you know what?
A crucial question could be: did it exist in the first place? Perhaps that first time you thought you saw it -- it was just a mirage? ;)

Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #8
Yes. That's why relating existence with observation is again utter...  :-X

Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #9
 

Hey! probably! Can you remember a user on MyOpera named "payitfwrd" on something like that? He participated in D&D and even had an off-site email -- then he disappeared along with ALL his posts made in the Forums. Remember?:)


So if all of my posts disappeared, along with my account, would I not exist?  :right:

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #10
Existence is indeterminable if nobody can possibly tell a difference.

Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #11
Mandi is a witch!

  • tt92
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #12
Why are all new towels waterproofed and with what and how do I get rid of it?

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #13
Chew them to break the surface tension.

Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #14

Why are all new towels waterproofed and with what and how do I get rid of it?

The towels or the waterproofing?

  • tt92
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #15
Yes

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #16

Why are all new towels waterproofed and with what and how do I get rid of it?
Call me odd, but I wash stuff before I put it to use. Which should get rid of just about anything pretty effectively. ;)

  • tt92
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #17
It was a question I intended to post in the  Silly Question thread and was not intended to be taken seriously.
I must have been half asleep to have posted it here.
Sorry about that.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #18
Not at all! Seriously, they might make them such intendedly: lest otherwise you'd buy a towel that has absorbed all shit possible from where it has gone through.

Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #19

It was a question I intended to post in the  Silly Question thread and was not intended to be taken seriously.
I must have been half asleep to have posted it here.
Sorry about that.

As usual. You'll be happy to know that I don't take any of your posts seriously.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #20
 Just had a gnoseological discussion with two believers advocating for me to stand the religious vigil instead of night sleeping. Went well:) 

Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #21
To observe is a tricky term actually. Sometimes we could think we observe something, which something could actually happen to either not be or be something else.
Science usually resorts to measuring and experiment -- to back up initial observations. :idea:

Measuring in experiments ain't what it used to be in science.  Quantum physics has turned that 'Arse'n'Sauce' on it's head!! 

Imagine a quasar -- a very luminous and very remote young galaxy. Now imagine that there are two other large galaxies between Earth and the quasar. The gravity from massive objects like galaxies can bend light, just as conventional glass lenses do. In this experiment the two huge galaxies substitute for the pair of slits in the famous two slit experiment; the quasar is the light source. Just as in the two-slit experiment, light -- photons -- from the quasar can follow two different paths, past one galaxy or the other.

Suppose that on Earth, some astronomers decide to observe the quasar. In this case a telescope plays the role of the photon detector in the two-slit experiment. If the astronomers point a telescope in the direction of one of the two intervening galaxies, they will see photons from the quasar that were deflected by that galaxy; they would get the same result by looking at the other galaxy. But the astronomers could also mimic the second part of the two-slit experiment. By carefully arranging mirrors, they could make photons arriving from the routes around both galaxies strike a piece of photographic film simultaneously. Alternating light and dark bands would appear on the film, identical to the pattern found when photons passed through the two slits, which showed that light can act as both particles and as a wave depending on whether the photons were being detected (watched). 

Here's the odd part. The quasar could be very distant from Earth, with light so faint that its photons hit the piece of film only one at a time. But the results of the experiment wouldn't change. The striped pattern would still show up, meaning that a lone photon not observed by the telescope traveled both paths toward Earth, even if those paths were separated by many light-years. And that's not all.

By the time the astronomers decide which measurement to make -- whether to pin down the photon to one definite route or to have it follow both paths simultaneously -- the photon could have already journeyed for billions of years, long before life appeared on Earth. The measurements made now determine the photon's past. In one case the astronomers create a past in which a photon took both possible routes from the quasar to Earth. Alternatively, they retroactively force the photon onto one straight trail toward their detector, even though the photon began its jaunt long before any detectors existed. 

In 1984 physicists at the University of Maryland set up a tabletop version of the above delayed-choice scenario. Using a light source and an arrangement of mirrors to provide a number of possible photon routes, the physicists were able to show that the paths the photons took were not fixed until the physicists made their measurements, even though those measurements were made after the photons had already left the light source and begun their circuit through the course of mirrors.

The conjecture is, we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself -- and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe. 

Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe?

The entire universe is filled with events where the possible outcomes of countless interactions become real, where the infinite variety inherent in quantum mechanics manifests as a physical cosmos. And we see only a tiny portion of that cosmos. It is suspected that most of the universe consists of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter that could record its activities.  The universe could be a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed. (This last part is not even a theory yet in physics because quantum theory is not yet complete--it is simply food for thought.)   

James J

Re: The Arse'n'Sauce of Science
Reply #22

To observe is a tricky term actually. Sometimes we could think we observe something, which something could actually happen to either not be or be something else.
Science usually resorts to measuring and experiment -- to back up initial observations. :idea:

Measuring in experiments ain't what it used to be in science.  Quantum physics has turned that 'Arse'n'Sauce' on it's head!! 

Imagine a quasar -- a very luminous and very remote young galaxy. Now imagine that there are two other large galaxies between Earth and the quasar. The gravity from massive objects like galaxies can bend light, just as conventional glass lenses do. In this experiment the two huge galaxies substitute for the pair of slits in the famous two slit experiment; the quasar is the light source. Just as in the two-slit experiment, light -- photons -- from the quasar can follow two different paths, past one galaxy or the other.

Suppose that on Earth, some astronomers decide to observe the quasar. In this case a telescope plays the role of the photon detector in the two-slit experiment. If the astronomers point a telescope in the direction of one of the two intervening galaxies, they will see photons from the quasar that were deflected by that galaxy; they would get the same result by looking at the other galaxy. But the astronomers could also mimic the second part of the two-slit experiment. By carefully arranging mirrors, they could make photons arriving from the routes around both galaxies strike a piece of photographic film simultaneously. Alternating light and dark bands would appear on the film, identical to the pattern found when photons passed through the two slits, which showed that light can act as both particles and as a wave depending on whether the photons were being detected (watched). 

Here's the odd part. The quasar could be very distant from Earth, with light so faint that its photons hit the piece of film only one at a time. But the results of the experiment wouldn't change. The striped pattern would still show up, meaning that a lone photon not observed by the telescope traveled both paths toward Earth, even if those paths were separated by many light-years. And that's not all.

By the time the astronomers decide which measurement to make -- whether to pin down the photon to one definite route or to have it follow both paths simultaneously -- the photon could have already journeyed for billions of years, long before life appeared on Earth. The measurements made now determine the photon's past. In one case the astronomers create a past in which a photon took both possible routes from the quasar to Earth. Alternatively, they retroactively force the photon onto one straight trail toward their detector, even though the photon began its jaunt long before any detectors existed. 

In 1984 physicists at the University of Maryland set up a tabletop version of the above delayed-choice scenario. Using a light source and an arrangement of mirrors to provide a number of possible photon routes, the physicists were able to show that the paths the photons took were not fixed until the physicists made their measurements, even though those measurements were made after the photons had already left the light source and begun their circuit through the course of mirrors.

The conjecture is, we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself -- and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe. 

Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe?

The entire universe is filled with events where the possible outcomes of countless interactions become real, where the infinite variety inherent in quantum mechanics manifests as a physical cosmos. And we see only a tiny portion of that cosmos. It is suspected that most of the universe consists of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter that could record its activities.  The universe could be a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed. (This last part is not even a theory yet in physics because quantum theory is not yet complete--it is simply food for thought.)  

The source of most of the above? Why? Because credit should be given.
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

  • Luxor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: The Awesomesauce of Science
Reply #23
The source of most of the above? Why? Because credit should be given.

Exactly! Besides it says so in the posting rules.
Quote
Acknowledge the source of the information, image or data you use in a post and provide a link to the source if available. Do not copy and paste whole articles.
The start and end to every story is the same. But what comes in between you have yourself to blame.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science
Reply #24
since there is no truth , there is only perception .

i more liked to use Socrates , n/or Plato Perception .

Socrates :
What about someone who believes in Science things, but doesn't believe in the Science itself and isn't able to follow anyone who could lead him to the knowledge of it? Don't you think he is living in a dream rather than a wakened state? Isn't this dreaming: whether asleep or awake, to think that a likeness is not a likeness but rather the thing itself that it is like?"

Glaucon : "I certainly think that someone who does that is dreaming."

Socrates : "But someone who, to take the opposite case, believes in the Science  itself, can see both it and the things that participate in it and doesn't believe that the participants are it or that it itself is the participants--is he living in a dream or is he awake?

Glaucon : "He's very much awake."