Science and arrogance Options

[Dan]

Num:
so we're agreed that you can't know, then?

Synch:
the energy is distributed deep into the ocean and horizontally across a large wavelength.  The energy density is small, but the volume is large

[synchronox]

OK Dan, you pass with lightening speed.  I am going to build this with care and patience, so please bear with me.  This is the first time for me to express this on the outside.
So we have established that the medium, in this case the water, is not traveling at 650mph, but a force traveling through it, OK?
Now, some distant point, let us say a beach X, is to be the destination point for this force.  Let us discuss this in a Socratic dialog fashion.  I am not trying to treat you as a student, but, instead have us carefully build a logical case.

[Dan]

I don't know if I'm keen on saying a force is traveling, but clearly energy is translating by means of a fluid medium.

;D

[numinoso]

Dan, I still fail to see the point behind your whole theory. It sounds like common field theories, but I don't understand why space has to be discrete. Common field theories also interprete bosons and fermions as fluctuations of the underlying field, but they don't need a discrete space.

It would also be interesting if you could tell us a little about the size of these modules. Are they close to the Planck length? (Meaning that the Heisenberg principle would enter the play.))

[Dan]

the point of the theory involves consciousness.  I am developing around an axiom that consciousness is not distributed in space, but that structure emerges in the 'subject'.  the simplest concept for emergence from void is duality, and these little 'dualities' are the bits.

and yes, it would make sense that the planck length is on the order of 'empty space' module size

8)

[synchronox]

OK, we are headed in the same direction.  I am trying to build a gedanken playground with the tsunami force-energy and water medium as model to get us away from someone else's jargon, which in many cases will just distract and mislead.  For an instance, try to forget what the industry is saying, they have demonstrated their inability to find anything in this area since the inception of science.  Otherwise I will withdraw and call attention to your jargonitis infection with attendant  attempt to creep.
Which shall it be, shall I withdraw and pout or will someone put up with my spoiled ways?  My sainted mother told me there would be days like these.  She depended on me to be her parent in a funny role reversal that really added a lot of unwelcomed spice to my life.  But that was an experiment played on me.
Back to the beach, so the force moving through the medium comes to point X and refocuses its energy cresting in an enormous wave running out of space to propagate.  Now it transfers its energy to the medium, instead of just moving through that medium.  It came to the waters end ability to carry the force.  Just like a sound barrier or light barrier or steam barrier.  Put in very simple terms it distorted the medium when the medium was not available to pass the force or energy on comfortably.  This is Observation #1.
Observation #2. there are two seperate 'worlds' encountered here.  World 1= the Matrix, I loved the movie but just to pay it the respect it deserves, not to be confused with what is observed here.  A system of evenly dispersed H2O nodes ( or whatever) bound together in some plastic arrangement with World 2-the energy-or force-or waveform ( we can decide on nomenclature later) moving leisurely through it at some constant rate.
The only conclusion I wish to come to at this point is Observation #1 & 2,  there is an end point to the systems interacting together and there are two systems that are seperate and distinct from each other.  Nothing more or less at this point.  Agreed or not agreed?

[Dan]

QUOTE

so the force moving through the medium comes to point X and refocuses its energy cresting in an enormous wave running out of space to propagate.  Now it transfers its energy to the medium, instead of just moving through that medium.  It came to the waters end ability to carry the force.  Just like a sound barrier or light barrier or steam barrier.  Put in very simple terms it distorted the medium when the medium was not available to pass the force or energy on comfortably.  This is Observation #1. Observation #2. there are two seperate 'worlds' encountered here.  World 1= the Matrix, I loved the movie but just to pay it the respect it deserves, not to be confused with what is observed here.  A system of evenly dispersed H2O nodes ( or whatever) bound together in some plastic arrangement with World 2-the energy-or force-or waveform ( we can decide on nomenclature later) moving leisurely through it at some constant rate.   The only conclusion I wish to come to at this point is Observation #1 & 2,  there is an end point to the systems interacting together and there are two systems that are seperate and distinct from each other.  Nothing more or less at this point.  Agreed or not agreed?

it seems you are saying that there is an energy wave moving, and that it is somehow separate from the water medium.  All I see is water molecules, nothing more.  The energy is completely contained in the translational motion of the water molecules, and is translating as a nondispersive pressure perturbation.  The origin of the pressure perturbation is due to some initial purturbation at the water boundary, like in an earthquake.  There is no 'force' moving through the water, there is just water molecules bumping into each other in a particular fashion.

I guess we disagree?

8)

[synchronox]

Dan,  And this bouncing or collision of what you call force has no dissipatory effects of reducing the energy?  If there is an interaction of force  between would this not be the same for instance, as DC current moving through a wire.  It can only move along with a resultant loss of 'force'.

In my example, I think I see a transfer of energy from node to node with little loss of energy.  In this case that I am suggesting there is a second system, a wave form system that acts in a different capacity.  A passing through rather than a 'mechanical' interaction.  

So, we disagree.  I think thinking along these lines will lead toward the solution of a unified field theory of how energy works.  At least it is fun trying.  Thanks, until the next example.
There is a University in your town.  Are you connected with it?
John

[Dan]

Synch

I'm thinking the lack of dissipation is what characterizes this as a harmonic wave, but there probably is a small dissipative loss such as friction and internal heating and other odd effects (it is just not big enough to matter).  The DC current through a wire experiences the dissipation due to joule heating, this is what superconductors solve.  

and yeah, I am an OU student (guess what in?)

8)

(p.s., I'm going to be out of town 'till Tues., going to CO for my little bro's HS grad  :( )

[ID]

As a late contribution to the original thread content, here's my overview for what it's worth.

Surely we must accept that what science is offering us is a series of models of reality, some of which may appear to be mutually exclusive. The arrogance lies in a belief that any one of these models is the 'correct' description of 'reality' - even at our human scales, 'reality' is filtered via sense data; at subatomic scales, we are forced into analogy to describe things, hence waves and particles. It is probably impossible (sic) to truly understand the nature of things in themselves; what science does with its models is give us tighter means of control of nature, that is technology. As an aside, I came across a wonderful line in a Don deLillo book 'White Noise' - "Technology is lust removed from nature." Sublime.

So whilst it is still fruitful to pursue different methods of description, it should always be borne in mind that no single way is the 'right' way.

[synchronox]

ID,

Thank you for the beautiful articulation of the subject.
My thinking perhaps is the view of what is 'real' is best seen by enfolding all of the strands into a rope and then viewing the world from this perspective, to mix metaphors.
I am reading a critique on Goethe and would respond with a blurb on the back jacket of this book by David Abram that better expresses an aspect of this sentiment:
"Many of us yearn for the maturation of modern science-
-its transformation from the calculative manipulation of deadened objects to an attentive exploration and participation of living nature."

The book is "The Wholeness of Nature"  by Henri Bortoft,
a one time grad student of David Bohm's.

I am ernestly following this path and found recently that Goethe had done a similar exploration two hundred years ago.  So now I find I am attempting to update not only Carl Jung but Goethe as well.  Such is the nature of my ownarrogance.
____________________________________
Edit:  To demonstrate what happens when this door is opened can be done by telling the story of how I acquired Bortoft's book.  It was given to me by a friend of my wife that knows little about me and what I do.
She is an affectionado of Steiner, I am not.  She gave me this book right after I had began this string on 'Science and its' Arrogance' spontaneously.  My wife nor I told her what I was doing.  This is a 'synchronox'-a synchronicity with a cause.  It is a very common occurance here.  

[seanf]

No-one here ever seems to cast doubt on the existence of 'things-in-themselves.' Has it been proved? In a way not worth challenging?

[ID]

synchronox,

I love the quote, also the rope analogy - nothing wrong with metaphor if we remember it is just that. I would say that one of my personal life quests is a synthesis of the many strands of science and philosophy into a more coherent and meaningful whole; coincidentally, I've just 'discovered' Bohm myself. Of course, I knew of him from other writings, then my partner randomly borrowed 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' from the library; I haven't finished it, but someone had ordered it at renewal time so I can't borrow it again for a while, hence I've just ordered it from Amazon - I must own that book! Perhaps I too have experienced a 'synchronox'!

[synchronox]

seanf,

It must be pointed out that the thing-in-itself is also a concept. Once this is realized it is then seen that it can not be 'proved', at least by the very creature(s), (Kant), that conceived of it in this manner and state and condition.  Sort of a box that we mortals are in at this time and can not get out of-yet.

ID,

Nice to be on the same page with you.

John

[seanf]

Is there then any point to discussing 'things-in-themselves'? As far as I can conceptualise, there is no existence other than self-consciousness and effect on consciousness that can ever be comprehended by consciousness. This leads to another thought: Objective knowledge of a/the universe is only possible if the universe itself is conscious in it's entirety - God.

[synchronox]

Seanf,
Two worlds, one of nature; unconscious-archetypally aware.  Major job, hand over to the next generation the toughest and brightest survivors of the last generation.
Second world, fully conscious.  Permeates the first world but does not interfer until one of the creatures in the first world gets it.  Then there is a flash and the world of Nature drastically revises to incorporate the new mutation.
This is my morse code version.  What do you think?