Nothing Plus Nothing Equals Nothing
Pages
| Author | Topic: Nothing Plus Nothing Equals Nothing |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 19:20
Profile
I have now said all I would have liked to have said on this matter with present company. -S- [ Wednesday, December 13, 2006 20:17: Message edited by: Synergy67 ] -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 19:39
Profile
Homepage
Synergy, my biggest problem with what you're saying is not how you think the body works. (I do have problems with that, but they're not my biggest problems.) It's how you think that scientists think that the body works. Your conceptions of what scientists believe would best be informed by speaking with actual scientists. Also, your understanding of physics is horribly erroneous and it would be best if you left your Newtonian physics/quantum physics analogy out, because it is so far removed from reality that your point will be lost entirely. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 19:50
Profile
[ Wednesday, December 13, 2006 20:07: Message edited by: Synergy67 ] -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 19:51
Profile
Whoa, this is nothing like the physics that I've learned...I need you to define energy. There is no such thing as just raw energy, it always has a physical manifestation, whether it be in photons, nuclear mass, molecular bonds, kinetic energy, etc. I need you to define your terms with rigor before we can discuss this. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 19:51
Profile
Here is a better way of differentiating Newtonian and quantum mechanical views. Newtonian is direct observation of what is happening with objects. Even invisible gravity is defined as a force that can produce macroscopic changes in the enviroment. Easily reproducible and measurable events. Quantum mechanics is indirect observations and probability calculations when applied to the real world. At the microscopic level you can't directly observe most actions so you have to infer what is happening from interactions that can be observed. You can't make completely accurate measurements because of Heisenberg Uncertainty principle places a limit on how close you can come to measuring all the variables. For some calculations you deal with the probability of different outcomes occurring. Both systems deal with matter and energy. It's just that Newtonian physics is seen as a limited case of quantum mechanics where you can simply the calculations. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:01
Profile
[ Wednesday, December 13, 2006 20:07: Message edited by: Synergy67 ] -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:06
Profile
Homepage
It may be that you're having trouble communicating your ideas because you have no scientific background and therefore little scientific vocabulary with which to express yourself. I suggest that you take a good year of real science (physics, chemistry, and biology) at your nearest university in order to remedy this situation at your earliest possible convenience. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:15
Profile
Homepage
Let's leave out the physics. They're just making things murkier. [Edit: Okay, a little physics. Newtonian physics advanced long after Newton's death, and just he didn't deny the existence of energy at all. Also, you are conflating two different things. One is that living beings are composed of matter and full of energy. That's scientifically fuzzy, but it makes sense. No argument. We radiate energy? Also uncontestable. That energy has effects? Of course. All radiated energy has effects. Here's the problem: the source of energy does not alter the character of that energy. Electric fields from brains are the same as electric fields in your computer's circuits. There's no reason to give them special treatment because they have mystical appeal.] Syn, you've got some false premises mixed into your understanding of cell biology and science. There's nothing magical about brainwaves, but brainwaves are electrical. We understand electromagnetism quite well physically, and it's already a subject of research biologically. The origins of those waves don't make a difference in any current model of physics, and biology has to be based on physics. It might surprise you to find out that Chinese traditional medicine is, in fact, studied by Western scientists. Sometimes what they do works and can be explained. Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes it works and can't be explained, but that is always the subject of further research, not rejection out of hand. Again, look at NCCAM. The Central Dogma is quite simple. In a nutshell, DNA is transcribed into RNA, which is translated into protein. There are subtleties, of course. Most DNA is not transcribed, and a great deal of RNA isn't translated. There's no argument about the basic principle, though. Information flows one way (except with reverse transcriptase). The Central Dogma does not claim that DNA controls biology. The cutting-edge DNA chip technology was designed precisely to show the effects of upregulation and downregulation of various genes. It's not even arguable that external (and internal) signals play a huge role in what cells do with their genes. It's accepted fact. Cells can't make proteins they don't have genes for, but they can do many, many things with what they do have, which is why we have red blood cells and neurons and leukocytes. This far I don't disagree with you except where you claim that science ignores signalling. It most emphatically doesn't. But then you claim that thoughts and emotions have effects on our cells. Actually, that's true. Thoughts and emotions can change our biochemistry. That's known, and while a lot of it is still not understood, it's being explored. It's explored as biochemistry, though, because there's no reason to look for new causes for the same effects. If a stressed mother has a fighter baby, it's not because her thoughts alter the embryo's development. Her stress level may release hormones, however, and those hormones can affect development. I don't see what makes this latter approach invalid except for the lack of special privilege for what's in our heads. Pharmaceuticals are only one element of medical research, and they produce results. So do studies that show us how to live healthier lives. Do you think the effects of fat, cholesterol, calories, exercise, and yes, stress were and are studied only by Big Pharma? "Overall well-being" is definitely a goal of medicine, but it is pursued just like all other medicine: from the basis of the science we have. Ideas outside the dominant paradigm are rejected because the dominant paradigm is the scientific method. If you have to posit whole new fields of science alongside the existing ones without evidence when the existing fields seem fully capable of explaining the phenomena in question, you are rejected because what you're doing isn't science. —Alorael, who is all for studying everything. When the studies come up negative, though, it's time to stop spending and move on. To turn the skepticism around, why are you so convinced that biochemistry cannot explain psychosomatic effects and the like? Why is a novel form of energy interaction required? [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 20:20: Message edited by: In Times of Tandem ] Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:15
Profile
quote:While you are correct, philosophy informs and shapes science, it is impossible to have a worthwhile discussion if you do not understand the science itself. Energy is a rigorously defined concept in physics. If you don't understand how it is defined and can make up your own definitions, there really is no point of discussion. quote:On its surface, you are correct, but horribly simplistic. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:16
Profile
[ Wednesday, December 13, 2006 20:08: Message edited by: Synergy67 ] -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:23
Profile
Homepage
I think you were the one who got upset with me for not making enough jokes, were you not? It appears that the problem is not that I don't have a sense of humor, but that you don't like my sense of humor. :P I would reply to your ideas, but Alorael has already said what I would say and has said it better than I could. Basically, the problem with what you're saying is that scientists are not actually ignoring what you claim that they're ignoring. [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 20:25: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:25
Profile
Homepage
Yes, you need a background in science to discuss science. Why is this surprising? If you didn't need such a background, nobody would study sciences to become a scientist in the first place! You don't need to be a scientist to discuss metaphysics; scientists are in fact not especially well equipped for that discussion. Metaphysics, however, are not relevant to health care, quantum mechanics, or the physical definition of energy. [Edit: Paradigm shifts require a genuine challenge to the paradigm. You can declare the dominant scientific paradigm to be wrong, but if it still finds the answers it needs there's no reason for anyone to listen. As Kel and I have now both said, part of your argument is from ignorance: if you don't know what scientists are doing, you can't chide them for not doing it.] —Alorael, who thinks you have now stated the problem. You believe the universe can be expresed in simple terms, but you are not a scientist. The scientists study it and express it in complex terms. From what position of authority do you declare the experts wrong because their pedestal of expertise makes them blind? [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 20:27: Message edited by: In Times of Tandem ] Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:26
Profile
quote:Watch yourself here Synergy, this is definitely not called for. You are officially warned. Now onto more relevant things... quote:You are correct, things can be expressed in very simple conceptual terms, but that does not make them necessarily useful. Very simple conceptual terms often leads to misunderstandings and misapplication of the science. What physics does tell us is that there are four fundamental forces. All interactions must follow one (or some combination of) these. Just throwing around energy as such a loose term, while justifiably correct, is not all that useful. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:27
Profile
[ Wednesday, December 13, 2006 20:08: Message edited by: Synergy67 ] -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:28
Profile
EDIT: This is unbelievable. I typed out this response between activities and of course it is now completely out of date. Whatever. That seemed a little harsh Kelandon. While I think all of you who are arguing with Synergy understand his point, you are evading the topic by clinging onto his vague use of scientific language. He strikes a cord with me by illustrating his philosophical views on, simply stated, the dogma of science. Synergy is completely justified in enumerating what he thinks is a lack of insight or perspective in current biological fields, which I suppose to include medicine and genetics in general. I doubt he is trying to debate with professional scientists on theory. I do not completely agree with Synergy's views, but as I always do, I will leave my thoughts unstated for now. They are probably inconsequential anyway. [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 20:30: Message edited by: Garrison ] -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:45
Profile
[ Wednesday, December 13, 2006 20:09: Message edited by: Synergy67 ] -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 21:18
Profile
Homepage
Again, your idea of what scientists think could stand to be informed by some experience with actual scientists. Good scientists are actually very good at admitting what we don't know. I can't count the number of times that my professors this semester have admitted that no one knows the answer to a question. One of my favorites was my astro teacher mentioning that our established theories predict that all the mass of a black hole should be crammed into a point with literally zero radius, which is one of the ways that we know that these established theories must break down at something like 10^-30 meters or some such infinitesimal distance. They work at the energies and distances at which we can test them now, but they need refinement at these vastly different orders of magnitude. You may have come to the impression that scientists are very sure of themselves because sometimes they are, and usually with reason. The fact that our current quantum mechanics and relativity break down at ridiculously small orders of magnitude doesn't mean that they're wrong at the orders of magnitude at which they've been tested. Quantum is definitely really good at the scale of the atom, and scientists know that with pretty darn good certainty. It needs revision for other scales, but scientists can be as sure as you like that it works at the scale at which it has been tested. This applies to biology, too: we're not suddenly one day going to discover that the heart mostly regulates reproduction and the spleen mostly pumps blood, or something like that. The stuff that we know, we do pretty well know. [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 21:24: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5091
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 21:30
Profile
http://www.onebodymindspirit.com/news_centre/Photogallery%20Pics/Deepak-arms300dpi%20%20copy.jpg EDIT: Bad Djur. [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 21:37: Message edited by: Imban ] Posts: 180 | Registered: Friday, October 15 2004 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 21:33
Profile
Homepage
Synergy, you are making some legitimate points. However, what you state far, far oversteps the boundaries of those legitimate points. Yes, many theories in contemporary science will someday be replaced with theories that provide superior explanation, and some things that most of us take for granted will be revealed to be not quite what we thought. That absolutely does NOT mean that the whole human endeavor of learning about the world through science, and constructing theories to explain how it works, is bunk! The fact that theories are not perfect and may someday be replaced with better theories does not mean we should treat them lightly any more than the mortality of individuals means we should treat them lightly. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 21:53
Profile
Once upon a time, I was a Lincoln-Douglas debater. I was good at it. In one match, I ran into an opponent who randomly inserted bits of Hobbesian jargon into what was supposed to be a debate about the constitution. When I pointed out the absurdity of citing a monarchist philosopher in a debate about the American constitution, she offered no pertinent reason for the jargon's inclusion save its contributing the 'philosophy' of the debate. The judge proceeded to inform me, after she had made her decision, that I didn't understand the philosophical nature of Lincoln-Douglas debate. LD is indeed a philosophical form of debate - oppose Ted Turner/Public Forum, which is largely rhetorical, Policy, which is mostly procedural, and Congress, which is parliamentary. However, adding philosophical jargon to an unreasonable screed no more makes that screed philosophy than adding lipstick to a pig makes it a woman. What I am getting at here, Synergy, is that your efforts to explain away your refusal to define your terms concretely as 'philosophy' does a grave insult to a respectable field you apparently understand no better than you do science. If anything, concrete definitions are more important in philosophy than in science; without a clear understanding of terms, any prescriptive or descriptive work of philosophy is completely useless. There's a reason every serious philosophical document takes pains to define its terms, pains that sometimes include usage of those terms outside of their usual role in language. Philosophy that does not define its terms is rhetoric, nothing more and nothing less, and holds no objective value to a reasonable person. It might hold subjective value, but only if the audience holds the rhetor in esteem. The rhetoric itself is objectively worthless. What you are doing is not an exercise in 'philosophizing' or 'pondering', as you put it. It is an exercise in salesmanship for your absurd contempt for the accepted consensus of science. Your appropriation of the basic language of quantum physics only occurs because quantum physics uses discrete terms and formulas that are easy to turn into power words, and because you feel confident in your ability to abuse your audience's ignorance of the actual dealings of quantum physics with impunity. I would once have had choice and terrible words for you, Synergy, but I am a busy man and you are beneath the effort it takes to produce those words. I hold out no hope that I will convince you of anything, because your role in this discussion is not a reasonable or earnest but fraudulent. Any statistics you produce will be either false or removed from countervailing context, because you have no interest in fact. (I recall you making the ridiculous claim that iatrogenic error was the leading cause of death in America.) The facts periodically disagree with your understanding, and because you are interested neither in philosophy nor in science nor any other form of inquiry that separates man from the beast of the field, you attempt to change the facts rather than your understanding. Anyone reading this is advised to pay nothing you have to say on the subject of science or especially medicine any heed. Your counsel is fundamentally identical to that of those lunatics who claim the Earth is 6,000 years old and flat: counterfactual, disingenuous, and malicious. And facially absurd. [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 21:56: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 21:53
Profile
[ Wednesday, December 13, 2006 20:09: Message edited by: Synergy67 ] -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 22:08
Profile
I have gone to the trouble of highlighting any word or phrase in your latest diatribe which disregards that phrase's usual use, conveys nothing substantial or - worse - appears to be facially absurd if not considered as a power phrase, is a five-dollar turn for a concept too banal to involve otherwise, or is apparently an invention of your own with no explanatory definition. Kel—Sure. I'm in accord with all of what you last stated, essentially. I have far less concern or questioning of theories of physics or chemistry or electricity or astronomy than with the sciences we apply most directly to our own bodies, which are primarily biology, medicine, and genetics. This is an arena that gets more personal for all us, has much more concering implications for the quality of each of our lives, and seems more resistant to shifting paradigms than other sciences. I've seen it described as a Pyramid of Science. Some time back, we had the following structure in science. The top of the list below would be the top of the pyramid and each higher up science rests on and in some way is determined by everything below it in some fashion. Psychology Biology Chemistry Physics Mathematics So, the new and present pyramid is described as: Psychology Biology Electro-Chemistry Quantum Physics Mathetmatics The lower three (Mathematics through Electro-Chemistry) have changed significantly. Biology and Psychology have essentially not changed accordingly with the three sciences upon which they rest and this is worthy of questioning. Well why not, and how could they possibly not? So, I'm not even talking about physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, chemists, etc. I'm looking at the Biology layer of the pyramid only, basically. I could also be looking at the Psychology layer of it just as readily, but that's a very different discussion all over. And perhaps not coincidentally, I can observe a greater resistance to change and new paradigms in the biological/medical/genetic world and an inherent conceit in that resistance. Much of it is no doubt driven by power, instituationalization, and money, but in this too is the simple human factor of ego and other less visible, quantifiable aspects which I think go with the particular nature of this level of the sciences, perhaps more than the others. Biology and Psychology are the most personal of the sciences. It is not to say there are not all kinds of cool and amazing and useful things going on with Biology and Genetics. It is saying that if underlying science has changed and expanded, and/or if {!!!} premises and foundations of Biology are inadequate or flawed, that the whole paradigm is too narrowly limited at best (and rules out possibly more potent and effective approaches,) and detrimental or destructive to our quality of life at worst. I currently work with chronically mentally ill clients, both in group therapeutic environments and individually. Virtually every session involves discussion of very disruptive, unpleasant, and unfortunate side-effects medications are having. And I am not the one bringing up the subject. If the paradigm upon which the chemical/pharmaceutical approach to changing inner biology is simply naturally limited to a narrow range of what it can ever possibly accomplish in the broad spectrum of overall human health, and we have invested the great majority of our funds, research, faith, and practice in this narrow approach, then we sell ourselves short of all the rest, and all the better that lies outside and above it. -S- I hope you find this helpful! [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 22:10: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 22:09
Profile
Homepage
Synergy: I'm not sure why you think that the medical industry only researches pharmaceuticals. It doesn't. I also don't know why you think that biological research is conducted differently from physics research. It isn't. And I am completely at a loss as to why you think that biology hasn't changed dramatically in the past century. The most recent revolutions in science have been in biology (DNA in the '40s and '50s, for one, compared to quantum as the most recent physics revolution in the '20s and '30s). [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 22:09: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 22:16
Profile
[ Wednesday, December 13, 2006 20:10: Message edited by: Synergy67 ] -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 22:32
Profile
Ah, at last, an effort to chase the opposition out of the discourse: the crank's tool just beneath abuse of technical language in esteem. quote:I didn't even address your character; my objection is to your conduct. By all means, I could also object to seriously addressing rhetoric from a maundering hack who regularly hits on women a third his age and well below the age of consent even over their vigorous protests. But I didn't; I only do now because you apparently don't wish to grant me the same luxury. quote:I said it was not worth my effort having words with you. I do not intend to shame you with my own words; if I did there would be much more about you being a pedophile and a crank. I intend to shame you with your own. That takes substantially less time and effort on my part. quote:What it says of them is that they do not necessarily share with me a profound scholarship in and understanding of pseudoscience, rhetoric, and the abuse of language. A casual observer might well be far more intelligent than I am, but without the formal background necessary to detect exactly how it is you are attempting to mislead them - and might be tempted to take your nonsense seriously. Honestly, have you no better defense of your unhinged, irrational pabulum than to try and shoo your detractors away from it? Whether I am consistent in my actions is irrelevant in the matter of whether or not you have anything of value to say. [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 22:33: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
