Science


Just in case you thought you knew what QM was about, it’s really about negative probabilities and how they vector sum. It says so right here.

http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

I’m not sure exactly what Intelligent Design is. I’ve read the material and listened to the arguments. it could be creationism or it could be religion, but as I’m not an expert on either I won’t speculate.

One thing is patently obvious, though. Intelligent Design is not science. I know science and it doesn’t look anything like this. So teach it if you must, but don’t even think about teaching it in science class.

Not everyone accepts this view instantly, so it seems I need to explain my position.

No, I am not closed-minded. However, I have reached a firm conclusion based on the available evidence: astrology is bunk. I shall stick with that conclusion unless or until someone comes up with far better evidence than any I’ve seen so far. I offer two approaches.

A. If astrology is proposed as a physical fact, it must conform to the rules of scientific investigation. There must be a hypothesis, and an experiment. The experiment must rely on objective methods, observations and interpretations. These are well established, so I don’t need to go into them.

At the conclusion of the experiment, both sides must accept the outcome: astrology is confirmed, or it is refuted, or further experiments are clearly needed.

My reading of the current situation is that either no such experiments have been conducted to the satisfaction of any scientists, or any experiments that have been conducted have totally failed to confirm astrology as a physical fact. (The lack of successful claims on the $1m prize offered by the Skeptics provides further evidence, if it were needed).

In this situation, a scientist will reach same the conclusion I have: astrology is bunk. A non-scientific person who would like astrology to work will refuse to accept the situation and will keep demanding “an open mind”. In my opinion the only closed minds are those who refuse to accept the evidence and keep looking for physical fact where there is none.

B. If astrology is not proposed as a physical fact, it need not conform to the rules of scientific investigation. Those who wish to use astrology as a personal tool to guide themselves or others in their daily affairs are (as always) free to believe whatever they wish.

I do not wish to deny people their cherished beliefs. In return, I ask that they do not propose as physical facts, any events and mechanisms which clearly have no such basis. Astrology is one of these, but there are countless others.

To all of them I say: XXX is bunk! (Substitute your own favourite in here).

Here are 3 statements that I think are true but are not widely understood or accepted.

  1. There is no such thing as infinity in the real, physical world. The observable universe is not infinite, and nothing in it is infinite. Infinity is a mathematical abstraction, not a physical reality.
  2. Most of maths is incompatible with the concept of infinity. Most operations cannot be performed on infinities. Virtually every proof or operation in maths is so constructed as to avoid infinities. Where an infinity occurs, the maths fails.
  3. Infinity is given a specific meaning in maths, based on set theory, to allow it to be used in a certain restricted set of operations. It’s a very odd definition, and it takes some thinking about. The definition is (roughly):

    “An infinite set is one that can be placed in a one-to-one mapping with a subset of itself.”

    Only a mathematician could love it!

Here on EAST (+11), 23:59:59 was followed by 24:00:00 (or 00:00:00) but 10:59:59 was followed by 10:59:60 and then 11:00:00. I wonder whether the correct adjustment was made to the TV news, phones, computers, etc, etc, and if so when.BTW GPS time was not affected. It doesn't use UTC.

Not everyone is aware that an attempt to force creationism in the guise of Intelligent Design to be taught as science in a US public school has been soundly defeated in the US Courts.The judge was in no doubt, and he was scathing.Quote: "To briefly reiterate, we first note that since ID is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of the ID Policy is the advancement of religion."

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

It will be a hard judgment to defeat on Appeal. Fantastic!!!

Here is the link for those prepared to read 139 pages of dense argument. The interesting bits start around page 130.

« Previous Page