Are Some Physics Questions Just Impossible to Answer With Our Current Brains?

[zomgwtf]

And again, you MISSED THE POINT, especially when I've already mentioned this stand clearly in this thread earlier on.

If the question was about wanting to understand something, fine. But it isn't. It is about wanting an answer based on an already-made conclusion about the nature of something.

If you had ALREADY DECIDED about the nature of wave-particle, and then want me to answer to your question on why it is impossible to understand such a thing, then it is futile for me to answer and correct such ignorance when it is based on limited knowledge!

Sigh... this is getting nowhere. So go ahead and draw up your own conclusion about me or this forum. After all, this is what this thread is good at, which is making up conclusions based on faulty premise.

Zz.

I'm drawing conclusions based upon what has been stated in this thread. Questions are unscientific. Even if they ARE based upon a faulty premise that makes them no LESS scientific and it means you should CORRECT that premise. Not just brush it aside because the person only has a 'intro level physics course'.

You should feel as if it's your DUTY even, since you ARE a scientist, to make sure that the correct scientific knowledge and understanding is being tossed around on these forums. Regardless of if you're a mentor or not and regardless of if this forum is for mainstream science or crackpottery. You should always try and help those who pose questions.

 

[zomgwtf]

I do know of the NATURE of the questions if I were to GUESS at what is being asked based on what has transpired. If someone were to walk to me and ask me "Do you know think we know what electromagnetic force is?", then I would certainly respond and try to explain. In fact, people HAVE asked me that since I run an outreach program often and also have welcomed the general public to our facility many times a year. I love nothing more than to answer such questions, because many members of the public do not get to interact with physicists very often, and when they do, it is understandable they have TONS of questions to ask.

But then, that isn't the question being asked, is it? I mean, look again at the original question related to the electromagnetic force and within the context and premise it was being asked. "What is an electromagnetic force?" is being asked within the premise that we really cannot understand (impossible?) it "... with our current brains"? Under THAT premise, do YOU think it is "scientific"? All I did was answer the question while completely ignoring the original premise of the OP.

Zz.

There was no premise given that it is impossible to answer the questions which the OP posed. It was a question of IF we can EVER understand some questions in physics with our current 'brain' power. I would understand this to merely mean 'can we answer all questions that will come from physics given the limitations of being human. (so like how we perceive things in our universe etc.) This question can be both philosophical AND scientific.

The questions within the OP itself though are scientific, no doubt about it in my mind. As well, as far as I know, there is NO current understanding of what exactly any forces are. We know how they operate etc. but not exactly what the fundamentals are. Just because we don't know this information currently does not mean we never will and does not imply that this question is unscientific.

It seems to me that this thread has turned more into a scientist attempt at bashing philosophy more than anything else. (even though philosophy is only minimally involved and it's not even involved in the way some people are trying to present it)

 

[ZapperZ]

There was no premise given that it is impossible to answer the questions which the OP posed. It was a question of IF we can EVER understand some questions in physics with our current 'brain' power. I would understand this to merely mean 'can we answer all questions that will come from physics given the limitations of being human. (so like how we perceive things in our universe etc.) This question can be both philosophical AND scientific.

And that is not how I understood the questions within the premise of the OP. And that is how I addressed it BASED on that understanding. And was answering it based MY view, not from how Russ viewed it.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

my, my, my---

Sigh... this is getting nowhere. So go ahead and draw up your own conclusion about me or this forum. After all, this is what this thread is good at, which is making up conclusions based on faulty premise.

Zz.

I don't believe that that is what this thread is good for--first, I recognize that that is your opinion; secondly, this is a discussion; next, you're implying that the entire thread is faulty, and going nowhere, and making up conclusions.

Z, you sound frustrated. Almost as if you don't like discussions about philosophy---or being involved after you do get involved. People do have different opinions--that's what makes a discussion. This is a discussion.

And again, you MISSED THE POINT, especially when I've already mentioned this stand clearly in this thread earlier on.

If the question was about wanting to understand something, fine. But it isn't. It is about wanting an answer based on an already-made conclusion about the nature of something.
Zz.

Sometimes the thread title and the first post are only that, and sometimes they're over the top, like that 'blue tits' thread. Most people are coming from "an already-made conclusion" even when they do pose a question---its meant for some discussion, and getting other people's opinions.

If you had ALREADY DECIDED about the nature of wave-particle, and then want me to answer to your question on why it is impossible to understand such a thing, then it is futile for me to answer and correct such ignorance when it is based on limited knowledge!

Zz.

here's my 'my, my, my...'

geez, I don't think any of us were expecting a 'correct' answer---and put on the weight on you to do it, and entirely on your shoulders to resolve the issue.

Ignorance...

Ignorance, WHAT ignorance?

you seem to like using that word and I personally think using it escalates the 'discussion' to an argument (the negative type). Are you implying that everyone who gave an answer has 'ignorance' ? and its your job to correct it? my, my, my...

I'm sure everyone, and I mean everyone is ignorant-------to some degree about something; I don't like being called it, if I was the one you were talking about, because you really didn't say, you just implied (everyone), and I don't believe most other people would like it, including yourself of being even imply of being 'ignorant'.

I thought at the beginning that this may be an interesting thread, and it is. It's a discussion about science, philosophy, and the both the science of philosophy and the philosophy of science---and the questions of the first post, and the philosophy and science of the questions of the first post (plus the rest of the thread, that includes the minor topics too).

(my, my, my...



that took at least 30 min to type up)

 

[Galteeth]

Perhaps the question could be restated in a different way. It is an interesting idea that there may be some problems that our brains can't conceive of solutions to. Those questions the OP asked may have answers, but is there some inherent limit to what our hardware can solve for? The most obvious example of an "unanswerable" question to me is the causality paradox.

 

[ZapperZ]

Perhaps the question could be restated in a different way. It is an interesting idea that there may be some problems that our brains can't conceive of solutions to. Those questions the OP asked may have answers, but is there some inherent limit to what our hardware can solve for? The most obvious example of an "unanswerable" question to me is the causality paradox.

Certainly. I definitely recommend the OP reformulating those questions and asking them, one at a time, in the physics sub-forums, if he/she really wants to learn, before extrapolating and making conclusions. Get an understanding first before concluding that there are no answers to them.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

if they were put in physics sub-forums they would be different. They become 'physics' questions then.

I went back and re-read the original post. The idea of the original post isn't completely and/or exclusively concerning 'physics' questions. It doesn't belong in a 'physics sub-forum'.

The discussions like this are a way of getting a better understanding. Very few people know or do the things that you do, and for them a "Get an understanding first" to the level that you accept before they ask a question may be hard to do.

If anything, it may belong in the 'philosophy' forum, but a lot of other similar question are in general discussion and haven't been moved---



Normally when you don't like a thread, for whatever reason, they often get 'locked'---the person comes down here to complain, then that 'complaint' thread disappears---it's funny that of the ones I've looked at, the thread was somewhat diverted and the word 'ignorance' was often used.

What's interesting is that the thread was doing fine. I think we get away from Z's dislike of the thread and re-start/ re-set the discussion back to the topic.

 

[Nebula815]

Certainly. I definitely recommend the OP reformulating those questions and asking them, one at a time, in the physics sub-forums, if he/she really wants to learn, before extrapolating and making conclusions. Get an understanding first before concluding that there are no answers to them.

Zz.

I didn't say there are no answers to them, but I do not see how humans at the moment can for example understand the exact "what" the electromagnetic force is that causes say a proton and electron to attract one another. Sure mathematically perhaps, but that's it.

 

[rewebster]

I didn't say there are no answers to them, but I do not see how humans at the moment can for example understand the exact "what" the electromagnetic force is that causes say a proton and electron to attract one another. Sure mathematically perhaps, but that's it.

I think all your questions can be answered---maybe the answers aren't 'known' (yet). The way I see it that if we have enough talents to go to the moon and built things like the LHC, they may just come to be 'known' someday.

I've read some of the things written about Einstein (even though I don't agree with him) about his theories. Some comments about his theory were positive (protons) and some negative (electrons).

If you do read some of the things he wrote, like even the more common of his quotes, they can be more philosophical about the way things are than some (scientists) like. I can't remember if there was any in writing if he read any of the eastern religious writings, but it sounds like it.

 

[Nebula815]

I've read some of the things written about Einstein (even though I don't agree with him) about his theories. Some comments were positive (protons) and some negative (electrons).

Confused by this last statement, some of his comments were positive and some negative?

 

[rewebster]

corrected in the post

 

[Nebula815]

corrected in the post

So sorry, I am still confused though. You say, "Some comments about his theory were positive (protons) and some negative (electrons)."

How could comments about the theory be positive or negative in that sense? I mean there are positive comments (meaning approval) and negative comments (meaning disapproval) but those uses of the words "positive" and "negative" are different from referring to the electrical charges that we call "positive" (which protons are) and "negative" (which electrons are).

 

[Galteeth]

I didn't say there are no answers to them, but I do not see how humans at the moment can for example understand the exact "what" the electromagnetic force is that causes say a proton and electron to attract one another. Sure mathematically perhaps, but that's it.

Well, in the case of the EM force, there are descriptions in the standard model at the quantum level that account for it. Perhaps what you mean is that at any level of complexity you can hypothetically reduce to a more basic why, and there would seem to have to be some point where you say "that's just the way it is?"

 

[Nebula815]

You could say that, but to me what that really means is, "That's beyond our ability to understand in that sense right now."

It's like creation of the universe. Where did all this stuff come from? Has it always existed? Has time always existed? How could existence of time have a "start?" If someone created the universe, who created the creator? Those questions are again beyond our ability to understand and for all practical purposes don't matter, but I am sure there are answers to them, just beyond our reach.

 

[Galteeth]

You could say that, but to me what that really means is, "That's beyond our ability to understand in that sense right now."

It's like creation of the universe. Where did all this stuff come from? Has it always existed? Has time always existed? How could existence of time have a "start?" If someone created the universe, who created the creator? Those questions are again beyond our ability to understand and for all practical purposes don't matter, but I am sure there are answers to them, just beyond our reach.

This is the "causality paradox" I was referring to. This same paradox can be applied to regression of levels of complexity. I think what people were getting frustrated by was that you choose a level of complexity for which there does exist a simpler descriptive causative level. By saying that lacking an understanding of a phenomenon at all possible levels of causation is the same as having no understanding, you have eliminated all possible knowledge due to the nature of this paradox. So I understand what you are trying to say, but your point is a bit muddled, since saying we can't undertand the electromagnetic force because there is some level of causation at which are understanding cannot reduce is like saying we don't understand Newtonian mechanics, or anything else for that matter, because the same argument applies.

 

[zomgwtf]

You could say that, but to me what that really means is, "That's beyond our ability to understand in that sense right now."

It's like creation of the universe. Where did all this stuff come from? Has it always existed? Has time always existed? How could existence of time have a "start?" If someone created the universe, who created the creator? Those questions are again beyond our ability to understand and for all practical purposes don't matter, but I am sure there are answers to them, just beyond our reach.

Well THOSE questions are more philosophical because we can not observe the creation of the universe so questions of 'where di the stuff in our universe come from' are much more philosophical than scientific. We do have very good models in cosmology of these sorts of things but they are by no means the 'answer to everything'. For all we know everything done in the field of cosmology could be completely wrong.

As well I do not think that a question of 'what is the fundamental level we can get to of what we perceive' the same as 'what is fundamental of everything in our universe.' These are two very different questions one is scientific one is philosophical. The fundamentals of say forces we possibly COULD figure out becaues we can observe them right now. The fundamentals of 'where those came from' or 'what created the fundamentals' is merely philosophy being a nuissance. Sometimes questions really do go too far and can not be answered in any way empirically or logically... so they are better left alone.

The questions you asked in the OP however I didn't take in this sort of 'creation fundamentality' but if that WAS what you were meaning then I take back everything I had said about your questions being scientific and jump on the wagon with Zapper.

 

[rewebster]

As well I do not think that a question of 'what is the fundamental level we can get to of what we perceive' the same as 'what is fundamental of everything in our universe.' These are two very different questions one is scientific one is philosophical. The fundamentals of say forces we possibly COULD figure out becaues we can observe them right now. The fundamentals of 'where those came from' or 'what created the fundamentals' is merely philosophy being a nuissance. Sometimes questions really do go too far and can not be answered in any way empirically or logically... so they are better left alone.

I'll use Einstein for example again. Not working in the 'field', wasn't a great student, may or may not have done too much lab, and sat around wondering what it'd be like riding on a beam of light

So sorry, I am still confused though. You say, "Some comments about his theory were positive (protons) and some negative (electrons)."

How could comments about the theory be positive or negative in that sense? I mean there are positive comments (meaning approval) and negative comments (meaning disapproval) but those uses of the words "positive" and "negative" are different from referring to the electrical charges that we call "positive" (which protons are) and "negative" (which electrons are).

I was playing with words---there is the idea of positive and negative in a lot of things, and often 'things' come out of it---positron and electron, sides of a debate, questioning a theory---who know how much of some of today's theories came out of debates on earlier theories.

 

[zomgwtf]

I'll use Einstein for example again. Not working in the 'field', wasn't a great student, may or may not have done too much lab, and sat around wondering what it'd be like riding on a beam of light

That's great, you can observe a beam of light and make measurements on it. What's your point again?

 

[rewebster]

That's great, you can observe a beam of light and make measurements on it. What's your point again?

you're may be thinking of it in the present day---with the present knowledge...

if you were there when Einstein was not working in the 'field', wasn't a great student, may or may not have done too much lab, and sat around wondering what it'd be like riding on a beam of light, you may have thought that this line of question "really do go too far and can not be answered in any way empirically or logically... so they are better left alone."

It almost sounds like you're against theory work, because it can't be taken any farther, are you?

 

[zomgwtf]

you're may be thinking of it in the present day---with the present knowledge...

if you were there when Einstein was not working in the 'field', wasn't a great student, may or may not have done too much lab, and sat around wondering what it'd be like riding on a beam of light, you may have thought that this line of question "really do go too far and can not be answered in any way empirically or logically... so they are better left alone."

It almost sounds like you're against theory work, because it can't be taken any farther, are you?

You're telling me that because we didn't understand what light was that we couldn't see it? That's just plain ole rediculous. Just because he took an unconventional way of looking at things which no one thought about doesn't mean he COULDN'T perceive light.

We CAN NOT perceive the creation of our own universe there ARE limits to what we can observe.

 

[rewebster]

You're telling me that because we didn't understand what light was that we couldn't see it? That's just plain ole rediculous. Just because he took an unconventional way of looking at things which no one thought about doesn't mean he COULDN'T perceive light.

I don't where you got that from what I wrote, sorry.

We CAN NOT perceive the creation of our own universe there ARE limits to what we can observe.

there is the big bang theory, if that's what you mean (?)

 

[rewebster]

As well I do not think that a question of 'what is the fundamental level we can get to of what we perceive' the same as 'what is fundamental of everything in our universe.' These are two very different questions one is scientific one is philosophical. The fundamentals of say forces we possibly COULD figure out becaues we can observe them right now. The fundamentals of 'where those came from' or 'what created the fundamentals' is merely philosophy being a nuissance. Sometimes questions really do go too far and can not be answered in any way empirically or logically... so they are better left alone.

which one is 'scientific' and which is 'philosophical'?

 

[zomgwtf]

I don't where you got that from what I wrote, sorry.

I said:

"Sometimes questions really do go too far and can not be answered in any way empirically or logically"

You counter:

"I'll use Einstein for example again. Not working in the 'field', wasn't a great student, may or may not have done too much lab, and sat around wondering what it'd be like riding on a beam of light"

I say:

"That's great, you can observe a beam of light and make measurements on it. What's your point again?"

You say:

"if you were there... you may have thought that this line of question "really do go too far and can not be answered in any way empirically or logically... so they are better left alone.""

So I'm saying that as long as something is possible through observation it is FIRMLY in the grounds of science. Einstein was STILL conducting science when he talked about 'what it would be like to ride on a beam of light'. It's as if you think you are countering my original claim because you think that Einstein was 'outside the field' at the time. IT DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT WHAT THE FIELD DID AT THE TIME. What DOES matter is that he could use empircal DATA or justify empircal experiments to COLLECT DATA in order to seek out his answers. What the REST of the scientific world thinks DOES NOT MATTER.

Why? BECAUSE LIGHT IS OBSERVABLE. He WASN'T sitting there wondering 'where did all this light originate from?'. If he DID do this then it jumps into the realm of PHILOSOPHY. More specifically I think that the question would fall into the category of METAPHYSICS. (Which is where cosmology lies.)

there is the big bang theory, if that's what you mean (?)

What does the big bang theory have to do with the creation of the universe? (I'll tell you it's very little to nothing.)

which one is 'scientific' and which is 'philosophical'?

I wonder...

"What are the fundamental particles of matter"
VS.
"Where did ALL fundamentals come from?"

One of these questions is firmly in the realm of science, the other is firmly in the realm of metaphysics...

 

[Nebula815]

So does this mean things like string theory are philosophy, or does that have actual empirical experimentation to it? Or there being more than three dimensions? Or what happens when something enters a black hole (there is a battle going on about this right now, covered in the book The Black Hole War. Are all of these philosophy?

I would say a question regarding the literal "what" that is the electromagnetic force, may be philosophical in that science cannot answer it, but I do not think it is a question lacking a solid answer. Just it is beyond the capabilities of humans and science to answer it right now.

 

[zomgwtf]

So does this mean things like string theory are philosophy, or does that have actual empirical experimentation to it? Or there being more than three dimensions? Or what happens when something enters a black hole (there is a battle going on about this right now, covered in the book The Black Hole War. Are all of these philosophy?

I would say a question regarding the literal "what" that is the electromagnetic force, may be philosophical in that science cannot answer it, but I do not think it is a question lacking a solid answer. Just it is beyond the capabilities of humans and science to answer it right now.

Well most of the things you talk about can be verified through experiments, that is to say they are FALSIFIABLE. As well most THEORIES are based on philosophies, mathematics AND science. They also can use each other, for instance using science to prove something philosophical. That doesn't mean that if you ask a question which can utilize science that it is automatically scientific, it may very well just be philosophy.

I can see now why Zapper and russ jumped the gun with what you asked, somehow they saw it before it even happened. But your question isn't even philosophy OR science. More of 'pseudoscience' I would say. Why? Because you are arbitrarily saying that what we know the electromagnetic force IS isn't good enough. Support this position a bit and I might reply... it kind of sucks that I was defending your questions and you come out with this . Now I do look like the ignorant type of person that ZZ was talking about.

 

[Char. Limit]

zomg, there is absolutely nothing wrong with defending people. Heck, I sometimes defend people I disagree with, because I feel the attacker is being unfair.

What I get from Nebula's questions is, what does all this really mean? It's one thing to say that light is hv, but that's quantitative. I think he's looking for qualitative answers. For example, we can explain the EM field well with math. But could you explain it well without (much) math?

 

[Nebula815]

Things like string theory, there being ten dimensions, what happens in a black hole, cannot be verfied with experiments from what I understand; they are all theory.

I can see now why Zapper and russ jumped the gun with what you asked, somehow they saw it before it even happened. But your question isn't even philosophy OR science. More of 'pseudoscience' I would say. Why? Because you are arbitrarily saying that what we know the electromagnetic force IS isn't good enough. Support this position a bit and I might reply... it kind of sucks that I was defending your questions and you come out with

In terms of pure knowledge-seeking, it is nowhere near good-enough. In terms of engineering, sure it is plenty good enough. But then again, in terms of chemistry, one only really needs to understand matter in terms of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

All that stuff about quarks, leptons, gluons, and all the other particles scientists keep finding are worthless for all practical purposes.

All we really "know" about the electromagnetic force is the mathematics of it and how it behaves. That is my point. No scientist can tell you exactly WHAT causes a proton and electron to attract themselves to each other. No scientist can tell you exactly WHAT a "positive" or a "negative" charge even really are.

All we know is that what we label as "positively" charged and what we label as "negatively" charged particles attract to one another.

But there is no way to really understand what causes the pull between differently charged particles, or the resistance between similarly charged particles.

 

[ZapperZ]

All that stuff about quarks, leptons, gluons, and all the other particles scientists keep finding are worthless for all practical purposes.

Teleport yourself back to the early 1900's, and I bet you'll be one of those who will make the same complaint against the SR and QM. But besides the basic knowledge aspect of it, which we have seen throughout history to eventually find direct practical applications later on, there's also a completely lack-of-information here on all the http://www.iop.org/News/file_34737.pdf" - everything from synchrotron light centers to the x-ray machines in your doctor's office.

All we really "know" about the electromagnetic force is the mathematics of it and how it behaves. That is my point. No scientist can tell you exactly WHAT causes a proton and electron to attract themselves to each other. No scientist can tell you exactly WHAT a "positive" or a "negative" charge even really are.

Here's an apple. Can you tell me WHAT an apple is? Now look at your answer and all you have is a series of characteristics and properties of an apple. If you think you "know" what an apple is, I can tell you that you don't know it as well as what physics knows about electromagnetic force.

Your response here have rather strengthened my original assertion that you have no interest in discovering if your original premise was even valid. Even in philosophy/logic, it is well known that a faulty premise can give you all kinds of ridiculous outcomes. This is going along in that direction as expected.

It is also strange that you question about the practical application and usefulness of basic knowledge, and yet this thread is edging on towards a "philosophical" discussion without you questioning the practical application of such a thing.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

It is also strange that you question about the practical application and usefulness of basic knowledge, and yet this thread is edging on towards a "philosophical" discussion without you questioning the practical application of such a thing.

Zz.

toward a "philosophical" discussion? This is a philosophical discussion.---and you're part of it!

Congratulations Z, you're a Philosopher!

Well most of the things you talk about can be verified through experiments, that is to say they are FALSIFIABLE. As well most THEORIES are based on philosophies, mathematics AND science. They also can use each other, for instance using science to prove something philosophical. That doesn't mean that if you ask a question which can utilize science that it is automatically scientific, it may very well just be philosophy.

are you trying to approach this discussion as a scientist? if you are, your approach isn't very scientific---its more from your philosophy.

So does this mean things like string theory are philosophy, or does that have actual empirical experimentation to it? Or there being more than three dimensions? Or what happens when something enters a black hole (there is a battle going on about this right now, covered in the book The Black Hole War. Are all of these philosophy?

I would say a question regarding the literal "what" that is the electromagnetic force, may be philosophical in that science cannot answer it, but I do not think it is a question lacking a solid answer. Just it is beyond the capabilities of humans and science to answer it right now.

that exact idea has been brought up in many other discussions/threads. Both a new debate and a new theory start out with a hypothesis usually, but the next steps can go into different paths. A theory is only a theory until it can completely be verified to some extent.

and, that's another reason why there's the idea/area/'label' of Theoretical Physics (I capitalized them to show their importance).

 

[zomgwtf]

I think it is important for people to have a firm understanding of the science, mathematics and philosophy behind their conclusions. So Nebula go ahead and show the understanding of the principles behind your conclusion.

As well the comment you made about The Black Hole War, what exactly are you saying? That this book shows that Hawking and Susskind disagree on what happens to information when it enters a black hole? I thought the disagreement came from what happens to the information once the black hole has evaporated... (hawking says it's gone forever susskind says it's still there)

--------------
@reweb
Are you purposely attempting to be annoying? It seems to me that most of your posts in this thread have only been directed in order to get some sort of response. If you have a point make it if you don't well then... (it wouldn't hurt if you actually took in and understood what was being said. Where did I give the impression that I'm at all attempting to approach this from any particular point of view? Of course I'm not approaching it from the view of a scientist, I'm not a scientist.)

It seems to me that one thing has been forgotten about completely: mathematics. As well it seems to me that people are assuming that because something incoporates 'philosophy' that it IS philosophy. Or that because something incoporates science it IS purely scientific. This is wrong and was not what the original responses were about.

As an aside how can you completely verify something 'to an extent'? It's either it's verified to an extent or it's completely verified...

 

[rewebster]

zomgwtf---isn't your 'opinion' also called your philosophy? I read your opinions on the areas we're discussing.

What conclusions? I read what was stated as part of the hypothesis. did you come in with preconceived ideas (conclusions)?

math isn't often part of a philosophic discussion---but it is up in the physics sub-forums (sometimes)

Z mentioned "the practical application of such a thing." Not all discussions lead to a "practical application"--

 

[zomgwtf]

zomgwtf---isn't your 'opinion' also called your philosophy? I read your opinions on the areas we're discussing.

What conclusions? I read what was stated as part of the hypothesis. did you come it with preconceived ideas (conclusions)?

math isn't often part of a philosophic discussion---but it is up in the physics sub-forums (sometimes)

Z mentioned "the practical application of such a thing." Not all discussions lead to a "practical application"--

Yet another post with the mere intent of getting responded to yet taking in nothing from what was originally posted.

I never said my opinion wasn't based on philosophy. It's YOU who is claiming something about my opinion being 'science based' or 'philosophy' based... whatever the heck that means. All I'm doing is laying out what words mean and how they are applied.

I never said you made conclusions. Re-read my post.

Math isn't often part of philosophic discussion... ok great. What's your point again? (I swear I could post this after every post you've made.)

I'm not even going to correct your misconception of Zappers position I'll just tell you to read the entire thread again, maybe take some notes if it helps straighten out everything in your mind. --I don't even understand how you decided to encorporate this in a response to what I said... I don't see anything to do with this as part of what I was stating about the discussion.

 

[Nebula815]

Teleport yourself back to the early 1900's, and I bet you'll be one of those who will make the same complaint against the SR and QM. But besides the basic knowledge aspect of it, which we have seen throughout history to eventually find direct practical applications later on, there's also a completely lack-of-information here on all the http://www.iop.org/News/file_34737.pdf" - everything from synchrotron light centers to the x-ray machines in your doctor's office.

That is my point. What can seem like a useless question at one point can actually prove very fruitful later on, once answered.

Here's an apple. Can you tell me WHAT an apple is? Now look at your answer and all you have is a series of characteristics and properties of an apple. If you think you "know" what an apple is, I can tell you that you don't know it as well as what physics knows about electromagnetic force.

Sure; at heart, physics can't tell ultimately what an apple is made of, because no one knows the smallest particle (if there even is one). Physics is also limited in this sense regarding the EM force.

Your response here have rather strengthened my original assertion that you have no interest in discovering if your original premise was even valid.

I would have to say your original assertion is incorrect.

Even in philosophy/logic, it is well known that a faulty premise can give you all kinds of ridiculous outcomes. This is going along in that direction as expected.

Not really. Again, there is absolutely no way to know precisely "WHAT" it is that causes attraction between negatively charged and positively charged particles. All there is, is mathematics.

Which is fine for practicality and knowing it exists, but there has to be more to it than that. My premise is simply will we ever be able to understand that "what" to things like the EM force.

It is also strange that you question about the practical application and usefulness of basic knowledge, and yet this thread is edging on towards a "philosophical" discussion without you questioning the practical application of such a thing.

Zz.

I do not question the practical application and usefulness of basic knowledge, my point was that many say asking certain questions is pointless and impractical. Yet asking questions that may have seemed pointless one-hundred years ago has led to much more advanced technology being created.

 

[Nebula815]

So Nebula go ahead and show the understanding of the principles behind your conclusion.

Tell me precisely what the EM force is that causes a proton to attract to an electron? You can't. You can give a lot of math to describe it, perhaps, but otherwise, the brain can't conceptualize it.

As well the comment you made about The Black Hole War, what exactly are you saying? That this book shows that Hawking and Susskind disagree on what happens to information when it enters a black hole? I thought the disagreement came from what happens to the information once the black hole has evaporated... (hawking says it's gone forever susskind says it's still there)

Maybe that is it, but either way, my overall point is there is no way they can experiment with something like that to find out who is right. Hawking says the information is gone forever, Susskind says that means the work of many great physicists is ultimately wrong and he disagrees with Hawking thus. But neither one can find out. It is all speculation. Just theory.

So is that science? Or philosophy? That was my question.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is the "causality paradox" I was referring to. This same paradox can be applied to regression of levels of complexity. I think what people were getting frustrated by was that you choose a level of complexity for which there does exist a simpler descriptive causative level. By saying that lacking an understanding of a phenomenon at all possible levels of causation is the same as having no understanding, you have eliminated all possible knowledge due to the nature of this paradox. So I understand what you are trying to say, but your point is a bit muddled, since saying we can't undertand the electromagnetic force because there is some level of causation at which are understanding cannot reduce is like saying we don't understand Newtonian mechanics, or anything else for that matter, because the same argument applies.

Patiently and articulately stated.

The trouble with the question of the thread title, Nebula, and most of the others you ask, is that it is the result of unnecessarily positioning yourself relative to the issue(s) such that you merely generate more questions. In other words, regardless of what an amazing amount of information humans have gathered about any given phenomenon, you're going to be the guy who defines physics as too hard and our current brains too limited simply because there's yet another question that can be posed.