On 25/12/17 18:30, GB wrote:
On 25/12/2017 18:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/12/17 13:54, Tim Streater wrote:
Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative
universes exist in which some or all of those constants have
different values.

Indeed it does and now you're in the realm of metaphysics.

There are however some speculative hypotheses which imply they do.

Again yuputr are staring out with baseless assumptions.

The notion of a universe, and indeed an alternative one, is itself
anthropic.

What is, just is.

...We assume, irrespective of whether we have notions about it, or not...



I just don't see where any of this speculation gets you?

In teh end all speculation as you put it, is the hypotheising of models
that may or may not fit experiece and may or may not be amenable to
disproof a la Popper and therefore become (in te context of science)
theories.

It's possible
to hypothesise anything at all, but if it can't be measured or observed
you can't take it any further. Discussion about alternative universes is
rightly treated as (science) fiction and fantasy, rather than philosophy.

Things that cannot be measured or observed do in fact take you further.

That is the point of metaphysics. Cna you observe Causality? Gravity? -
no, you mesasure and observe what you assume are their effects.


They turn out to be useful *notions* that form a framework on which you
hang your expereience that helps sort it out and make sense of it.

Neither exists, except as a notion, however.

That is the mistake that people who *think* they understand science all
make.

The point of philosophy is to point that out. To ensure that what people
think are 'scientific facts' are in fact no more than *models that seem
to work*, mostly.

'Alternate universes' is a model, that may or may not be useful. Its a
way of trying to grapple with the inconsistencies of some of the models
we currently have. A way of saying that our current relaity seems to be
one solution to a set of equations that may have infinite solutions.

We wouldnt be proposing it if there wasn't some evidence to suggest it
might be meaningful.

Knowledge is the classification of experience according to metaphysicial
principles. Physics, for example, operates on a world that has already
been classified by metaphysics, into a materaility, in which time and
space are the axes, and mass and energy are the quantities, and in which
causailty is arrived at as the link between experiences at different
'times' and 'places'.

You learn this metaphysic as a child without being aware that it is only
a model.

Mostly you treat it as 'real' But that leads to huge problems. Take
Plow****. Hid metaphysical reality is the metaphysics of Marx, which
must interpret everything into a framework of class opressions and
exploitation... If it doesnt fit that matrix, it doesnt actually EXIST
for him. So going out and being nice to some randonm child is not for
him an expression of human compassion - Marx's model doesnt have that
category - but by its very nature has to be an adult exploiting a child
for some oppressive purpose. I.e. we are all *predatory* paedophiles if
we just happen to like children etc.

And that is how the mind-****s work. Marxism isnt about this or that,
its about getting you to use Marxist metaphysics to look at the world,
so you see it *only* in terms of oppression, inequality and exploitation.

Then you can be lead by the nose.

It's just another metaphysic however, and one that has been ripped apart
as totally illogical by the likes of Roger Scruton.

So yes, things that cannot be measured or observed are in fact the
funadmental axes we construct our views of the world upon. WE
hypothesise 'imaginary' entities like 'gravity' or 'social justice' and
use them to *construct* a world view that works, or is useful, or in the
case of 'social justice' one that doesn't work and whose only use is the
influencing of many stupid people into thinking they are smarter than
they are, so that a few slightly smarter people can manipulate them.


Once, this process of using metaphysics to bend peoples minds was known
as magic, before state religion took over.

Post religion, its now called 'marketing' or 'propaganda'

The black magicians of 500 years ago are alive and well, and working in
Saatchi and Saatchi...


--
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On 25/12/17 18:46, Tim Streater wrote:
Remember phlogiston
and the luminiferous ether. Both though to exist to explain observed
phenomena, both ideas scrapped as sharper minds thought up other
explanations.

Good notions in their day, but didnt stand up to scrutiny.

Frankly more comprehensible than relativity too.

The divergence between compreshensibility and accuracy is now vast

Nobody understands quantum theory. It just works....

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people
by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are
poor.

Peter Thompson

On 25/12/17 19:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/12/2017 18:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/12/17 13:54, Tim Streater wrote:
Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative
universes exist in which some or all of those constants have
different values.

Indeed it does and now you're in the realm of metaphysics.

There are however some speculative hypotheses which imply they do.

Again yuputr are staring out with baseless assumptions.

The notion of a universe, and indeed an alternative one, is itself
anthropic.

What is, just is.

If only philosophers through the ages had appreciated that universal
wisdom, they'd have saved so much time, and perhaps been able to do
something useful instead.

They have and they did.

What you don't understand is just what that is.

If you go back to Occam, for example, (13th century) it is patently
obvious that he took as his *starting point* the notion that theories
are not true. Which is why he could point out that arguing over which
one *was* true was pointless. We should, he said, simply select the one
that was only just complicated enough to explain what needed to be
explained.

It's all very well to say - as Wittgenstein did - 'concerning what
cannot be talked about, we might as well shut up' - but humans do a lot
of talking about things that they know little or nothing about, using
notions that dont hold water, and the proper business of philosophers is
often to point that out.

The business of philosophers is the contruction and maintenance of
metaphysical world-views.

For the rest of the populations, such as yourself, this is largely a
meaningless exercise, because you labour under the delusions that your
view of the world is actually reality itself. You consider that space,
time, causality, matter, and energy *actually exist*.

Rather than being the metaphsyical axes and axioms on which we
*construct* the physical world (view), that people now tell us is *all
there is*.

To be a philosopher, is to stand outside the constructions of humanity,
as far as possible and see them for what they are - constructions.

To be a sheeple, is to live inside them and to take them for real.

Look at Brexit/Remoaner arguments. Two fundamentally different
metaphsyical positions based on opposed views of a certain political
structure - the European Union. One view holds that it is however
flawed, a fundamentally benevolent institution that embodies lots of
nice cuddly ideas about peace and social justice and so on, and is
synonymous with 'Europe'.

The other view holds that it is a pernicious self seeking lying
anti-democratic and thoroughly dangerous organisation that has sought -
and succeeded - in usurping democractic power from the nation states
that comprise it, and it is thoroughly incompetent in its exercise of
such power as it has usurped.

To people who are bound to think that their world-view *is* reality,
these are massively emotive issues. One side must be right, and the
other side must be wrong, and the angst of possibly being on the *wrong*
side drives the emotional battle that there is.

And I personally consider that it is the remoaner side that is more
convinced it *is* the custodian of the 'real view' - the class of
individuals comprising the brexiteers is of necessaity somewhat
anti-orthodoxy, and therefore not so cemented into a a particular
world-view.

Brexiteers for example, have a much more sophisticated view of Europe,.
being able to distinguish between 'Europe, the geographical continent'
'Europe, the peoples that comprise it' 'Europe, the nation states that
exist within it' and 'Europe, the European Union that purports to
represent and rule all of the above'.


Brexiteers say we are leaving the EU, but by conflating all of the
above into one nursery level entity, remoaners moan that we are 'leaving
Europe'.

Because there is no distinction in their simplistic worldview, they are
aghast.

Whereas Brexiteers regard it as simply a political disconnection. We are
not leaving Europe. We simply choose not to be ruled by the EU.

Our politicians may be sons of bitches too, but they are our sons of
bitches, we lnow where they live, and we can in theory sack the ****s.

I mention this to show how a *model* of reality, pushed by marketing and
propaganda, becomes *reality itself* to the lesser minded sheeple.


The more sophisticated you are, or in some cases the less sophisticated
you are*, the more you realise that *the map is not the territory*. The
entity 'Europe' is an intellectual construct and has no clearly defined
real meaning that is common to all people.

Allowing such bait and switch techniques as 'we are leaving the EU = we
are leaving Europe = we are turning out backs on European culture, and
European nations and pursuing a policy of idiotic isolationism'

This is all done by simply reniforcing the nursery level concept that
the EU IS 'Europe' and is a synonym for any other use of the word 'Europe'

Simlarly a 'no [trade deal]' is empahasised as a [no trade] deal - yes
there are people who think that without a magical 'trade deal' we wont
be able to trade with Europe AT ALL. And I have met with and spoken to
them. They were very young.

This is all political metaphysics.

And that is why you need philosophy. To point that out. That these
concepts and notions are not reality itself, they are a narrative, a
story, about whatever reality is. And like all stories, they are
selective, limited,and fictional and whilst handy to bend peoples
wills, not really that handy when it comes to dealing with the reality
of whether we are going to let Mohammed Ahmed and his 'refugee' brothers
into Britain next thursday.

The class of reality model that *is* handy when dealing with such
mundane issues was identified by Nigel Farage as 'common sense'.

Other handy models are e.g. 'physics' and 'chemistry'. Mostly these
work, too.

Models that dont work, but *make stupid people feel good* are
'socialism' 'emotional intelligence' 'religion' and so on. All designed
to make people feel that they are fundamentally excellent and valuable
members of society, when they are in fact just parasitic ****s.




*I have found that illiterate labourers, who are so humble in their own
ability to think in complex terms, tend to be immune from the 'bull****
baffles brains' syndrome that infects people who think they are
intelligent, right up to when you get to the serious geniuses, who have
got to the bleeding edge and realised that after all, we know **** all
for sure either...and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either. Both
second rate minds.




--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 26/12/17 04:47, wrote:
On Monday, 25 December 2017 18:07:14 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 25/12/17 13:43, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 11:57:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 25/12/17 11:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 09:10:43 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

But it's a philosophical question. And I thought from your
name that you might have an answer.

Natural Philosophy has nowt much to do with philosophy; it's
simply the archaic term for science.

And you think that science has nowt to do with philosophy? How
quaint!"


Natural philosophy was the term for science back in Newton's day.
I'm guessing you must surely know that, since it's your adopted
moniker.


Nope, science is the modern name for natural philosophy.

It ries to pretend it isnt a branch of philsophy. This leads to
huge mistakes - like 'climate change'

That's a major problem with 'science' today. The experiments are
done, the results analysed and p value calculated, but somewhere
along the line the illogic of the experimenter completely screwed up,
making the conclusions largely worthless.


And that is because people are taught how to 'do science', not what
science *is*.

The death of the greatest philosopher of science of the late 20th
century, Hilary Putnam, went completely unremarked.

And yet, the way we think today, is the metaphsyics of the era somewhat
before Kant, so we may say that normal humans lag philosophers by only
300 years or so.




NT



--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 26/12/17 04:49, wrote:
On Monday, 25 December 2017 18:09:14 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/12/17 13:54, Tim Streater wrote:

Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative universes
exist in which some or all of those constants have different values.

Indeed it does and now you're in the realm of metaphysics.

There are however some speculative hypotheses which imply they do.

Again yuputr are staring out with baseless assumptions.

The notion of a universe, and indeed an alternative one, is itself
anthropic.

What is, just is.

...We assume, irrespective of whether we have notions about it, or not...


'Alternate universe' strikes me as a self contradiction. Thus they don't exist.


Again, semantics and ontology.

The 'Universe' is supposed to appply to 'all that is'. So in that sense
alternate ones are simply part of a larger Universe.

However we do lack a descriptive term other than that for states of
reality that are so almost completely orthogonal to our own idea of what
th world is, that evidence for their existence is somewhere down in the
13th decimal place...

It's a bit like saying if its black it isn't a swan. Nevertheless there
are birds who look like swans, that are in fact black.

In the end quantum theory suggests that the probability functions that
seem to describe the way quantum physics seems to work, pretty well,
have more than one solution that leads to a 'state of reality'

What is more disturbing, is that 'states of reality' seem to be
contingent on an observer observing them.

Less 'if a tree falls and there is no one to hear it, does it make a
sound?', than 'if a tree falls and no one is there to see it, has it
actually fallen at all?'

Cf poor Schrödinger's cat...

All these problems can be solved by adopting a radical perspective:
namely that the world is as we see it only because we see it in that
way. In reality we are selecting particular solutions to the quantum
equations and forming a reality consistent with our expectations out of it.

Needless to say, no physicist has accepted this possibility. Hence the
'alternate reality' model. Physicists *have to believe* that their minds
play *no part whatsoever* in the construction of the 'physical reality'
they are bound to examine.





NT



--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

Yes well when you get near to the clock speed of this ere universe
simulation, you cannot have stuff that moves faster than that can you.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:46:32 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

unable to detect. This is called dark matter.

Mind you, that idea could be scrapped at any time.

They're on about "dark energy" now, to account for the *acceleration* in
the expansion of the universe!
Must be a nightmare being in theoretical physics nowadays.

Or exciting.

When I was at CERN I used to see this bloke kicking around who looked a
bit of a fathead (opinionated? Moi?) but then I discovered he was John
Bell - one of the smartest theoretical physicists of the 20th C. Look
up the Bell Inequality in Winky ands see the last two sections on
Metaphysical Aspects and General Remarks and see that experiment proves
that reality is strange; multiple parallel universes may not be the
half of it.

--
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

The thing is regardless of what reality is, if more and more space is being
created all the time, it will obviously appear the Universe is moving apart
much faster all the time, worse than that of course if space is being added
inside atoms and maybe even quarks, then at some time in the future it will
overwhelm the stronger forces, and the whole universe will end up just a
load of particles flying around unable to form matter again.
I guess the good thing about this scenario is that we are unlikely to know
anything about it when it happens.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 20:43:01 -0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

What are the parameters that set the speed of electromagnetic
transmission in a vacuum? I've googled everywhere but I can't find the
answer. It's easy enough to find the figure but WHY? Why not
29,979,245.8 metres per second or 2,997,924,580 metres per second?

https://aeon.co/essays/why-is-the-sp...speed-of-light

--
"You, you, and you ... panic. The rest of you, come with me." - U.S.
Marine Corp Gunnery Sgt.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 25/12/17 09:51, John Hall wrote:
In message , Tim
Streater writes
AIUI, there are about 26 physical constants (such as speed of light)
for the values of which there is no theoretical explanation known
today. That is, it's as if God (I use the term for convenience) has 26
knobs to turn to set these values and launch the universe. They could
have any values, these constants, and life would not be possible in
most of the resulting universes.
Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative
universes exist in which some or all of those constants have
different values.

Since by definition we can't exist in them, how could we tell?



I suspect that there may be no way of doing so, which may make it a
question for philosophers rather than for scientists.
--
John Hall "George the Third
Ought never to have occurred.
One can only wonder
At so grotesque a blunder." E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)

The Natural Philosopher formulated on Tuesday :
*I have found that illiterate labourers, who are so humble in their own
ability to think in complex terms, tend to be immune from the 'bull****
baffles brains' syndrome that infects people who think they are intelligent,
right up to when you get to the serious geniuses, who have got to the
bleeding edge and realised that after all, we know **** all for sure
either...and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either. Both second rate minds.

So who, in your opinion, demonstrates a first rate mind?

On 26/12/17 10:23, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
The Natural Philosopher formulated on Tuesday :
*I have found that illiterate labourers, who are so humble in their
own ability to think in complex terms, tend to be immune from the
'bull**** baffles brains' syndrome that infects people who think they
are intelligent, right up to when you get to the serious geniuses, who
have got to the bleeding edge and realised that after all, we know
**** all for sure either...and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either.
Both second rate minds.

So who, in your opinion, demonstrates a first rate mind?

Putnam was.


--
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 06:14:38 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/12/17 19:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/12/2017 18:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/12/17 13:54, Tim Streater wrote:

If only philosophers through the ages had appreciated that universal
wisdom, they'd have saved so much time, and perhaps been able to do
something useful instead.

They have and they did.

What you don't understand is just what that is.

The human mind imagines possible explanations for things, and in most cases then confuses those imagined stories with fact. And we have about 7 billion of them. No wonder then that there is so much bs in the world. Philosophy's job is to determine and points out that a good bit of it is bs, and thus help to weed out a lot of unconstructive and destructive nonsense. Regrettably the supply of philosophy falls far short of what the human species needs. Nonetheless it has achieved a huge amount so far.


NT

On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 06:24:20 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/12/17 04:47, tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 25 December 2017 18:07:14 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Nope, science is the modern name for natural philosophy.

It ries to pretend it isnt a branch of philsophy. This leads to
huge mistakes - like 'climate change'

That's a major problem with 'science' today. The experiments are
done, the results analysed and p value calculated, but somewhere
along the line the illogic of the experimenter completely screwed up,
making the conclusions largely worthless.


And that is because people are taught how to 'do science', not what
science *is*.

It's because people are mostly not taught logic and reason, ie philosophy. Human egos assume that we are reasonable and logical, when naturally that is not the case. It takes learning to improve it.


NT

..

Mind you, that idea could be scrapped at any time. Remember phlogiston
and the luminiferous ether. Both though to exist to explain observed
phenomena, both ideas scrapped as sharper minds thought up other
explanations.





phlogiston


Now theres summatt that Russ Andrews could make things out of treated
cables in this mysterious substance could make a fortune from the
gullible;!

--
Tony Sayer

On 26/12/2017 06:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/12/17 19:28, Norman Wells wrote:

The business of philosophers is the contruction and maintenance of
metaphysical world-views.

For the rest of the populations, such as yourself, this is largely a
meaningless exercise, because you labour under the delusions that your
view of the world is actually reality itself. You consider that space,
time, causality, matter, and energy *actually exist*.

Yes, but I'm really quite happy with that. It seems to work somehow.

Rather than being the metaphsyical axes and axioms on which we
*construct* the physical world (view), that people now tell us is *all
there is*.

To be a philosopher, is to stand outside the constructions of humanity,
as far as possible and see them for what they are - constructions.

But does it help?

To be a sheeple, is to live inside them and to take them for real.

Look at Brexit/Remoaner arguments. Two fundamentally different
metaphsyical positions based on opposed views of a certain political
structure - the European Union. One view holds that it is however
flawed, a fundamentally benevolent institution that embodies lots of
nice cuddly ideas about peace and social justice and so on, and is
synonymous with 'Europe'.

The other view holds that it is a pernicious self seeking lying
anti-democratic and thoroughly dangerous organisation that has sought -
and succeededÂ* - in usurping democractic power from the nation states
that comprise it, and it is thoroughly incompetent in its exercise of
such power as it has usurped.

To people who are bound to think that their world-view *is* reality,
these are massively emotive issues. One side must be right, and the
other side must be wrong, and the angst of possibly being on the *wrong*
side drives the emotional battle that there is.

And I personally consider that it is the remoaner side that is more
convinced it *is* the custodian of the 'real view' - the class of
individuals comprising the brexiteers is of necessaity somewhat
anti-orthodoxy, and therefore not so cemented into a a particular
world-view.

Brexiteers for example, have a much more sophisticated view of Europe,.
being able to distinguish between 'Europe, the geographical continent'
'Europe, the peoples that comprise it' 'Europe, the nation states that
exist within it' and 'Europe, the European Union that purports to
represent and rule all of the above'.


Brexiteers say we are leaving the EU, butÂ* by conflating all of the
above into one nursery level entity, remoaners moan that we are 'leaving
Europe'.

Because there is no distinction in their simplistic worldview, they are
aghast.

Whereas Brexiteers regard it as simply a political disconnection. We are
not leaving Europe. We simply choose not to be ruled by the EU.

Our politicians may be sons of bitches too, but they are our sons of
bitches, we lnow where they live, and we can in theory sack the ****s.

I mention this to show how a *model* of reality, pushed by marketing and
propaganda, becomes *reality itself* to the lesser minded sheeple.


The more sophisticated you are, or in some cases the less sophisticated
you are*, the more you realise that *the map is not the territory*. The
entity 'Europe' is an intellectual construct and has no clearly defined
real meaning that is common to all people.

Allowing such bait and switch techniques as 'we are leaving the EU = we
are leaving Europe = we are turning out backs on European culture, and
European nations and pursuing a policy of idiotic isolationism'

This is all done by simply reniforcing the nursery level concept that
the EU IS 'Europe' and is a synonym for any other use of the word 'Europe'

Simlarly a 'no [trade deal]' is empahasised as a [no trade] deal - yes
there are people who think that without a magical 'trade deal' we wont
be able to trade with Europe AT ALL. And I have met with and spoken to
them. They were very young.

This is all political metaphysics.

And that is why you need philosophy. To point that out. That these
concepts and notions are not reality itself, they are a narrative, a
story, about whatever reality is. And like all stories, they are
selective, limited,and fictionalÂ* and whilst handy to bend peoples
wills, not really that handy when it comes to dealing with the reality
of whether we are going to let Mohammed Ahmed and his 'refugee' brothers
into Britain next thursday.

The class of reality modelÂ* that *is* handy when dealing with such
mundane issues was identified by Nigel Farage as 'common sense'.

Other handy models are e.g. 'physics'Â* and 'chemistry'. Mostly these
work, too.

Models that dont work, but *make stupid people feel good* are
'socialism' 'emotional intelligence' 'religion' and so on. All designed
to make people feel that they are fundamentally excellent and valuable
members of society, when they are in fact just parasitic ****s.

*I have found that illiterate labourers, who are so humble in their own
ability to think in complex terms, tend to be immune from the 'bull****
baffles brains' syndrome that infects people who think they are
intelligent, right up to when you get to the serious geniuses, who have
got to the bleeding edge and realised that after all, we know **** all
for sure either...and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either. Both
second rate minds.

Ah, well, there ya go, squire. Same time tomorrah?

On 26/12/17 15:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/12/2017 06:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/12/17 19:28, Norman Wells wrote:

The business of philosophers is the contruction and maintenance of
metaphysical world-views.

For the rest of the populations, such as yourself, this is largely a
meaningless exercise, because you labour under the delusions that your
view of the world is actually reality itself. You consider that space,
time, causality, matter, and energy *actually exist*.

Yes, but I'm really quite happy with that.Â* It seems to work somehow.

Except when it doesn't. I.e. quantum physics


Rather than being the metaphsyical axes and axioms on which we
*construct* the physical world (view), that people now tell us is *all
there is*.

To be a philosopher, is to stand outside the constructions of
humanity, as far as possible and see them for what they are -
constructions.

But does it help?

In the limit at the bleeding edge of real knowldege, yes it does.

And at a very much more normal level as I outlined below, it makes sense
of why people get politically conned and why they attach so much emotion
to it.





To be a sheeple, is to live inside them and to take them for real.

Look at Brexit/Remoaner arguments. Two fundamentally different
metaphsyical positions based on opposed views of a certain political
structure - the European Union. One view holds that it is however
flawed, a fundamentally benevolent institution that embodies lots of
nice cuddly ideas about peace and social justice and so on, and is
synonymous with 'Europe'.

The other view holds that it is a pernicious self seeking lying
anti-democratic and thoroughly dangerous organisation that has sought
- and succeededÂ* - in usurping democractic power from the nation
states that comprise it, and it is thoroughly incompetent in its
exercise of such power as it has usurped.

To people who are bound to think that their world-view *is* reality,
these are massively emotive issues. One side must be right, and the
other side must be wrong, and the angst of possibly being on the
*wrong* side drives the emotional battle that there is.

And I personally consider that it is the remoaner side that is more
convinced it *is* the custodian of the 'real view' - the class of
individuals comprising the brexiteers is of necessaity somewhat
anti-orthodoxy, and therefore not so cemented into a a particular
world-view.

Brexiteers for example, have a much more sophisticated view of
Europe,. being able to distinguish between 'Europe, the geographical
continent' 'Europe, the peoples that comprise it' 'Europe, the nation
states that exist within it' and 'Europe, the European Union that
purports to represent and rule all of the above'.


Brexiteers say we are leaving the EU, butÂ* by conflating all of the
above into one nursery level entity, remoaners moan that we are
'leaving Europe'.

Because there is no distinction in their simplistic worldview, they
are aghast.

Whereas Brexiteers regard it as simply a political disconnection. We
are not leaving Europe. We simply choose not to be ruled by the EU.

Our politicians may be sons of bitches too, but they are our sons of
bitches, we lnow where they live, and we can in theory sack the ****s.

I mention this to show how a *model* of reality, pushed by marketing
and propaganda, becomes *reality itself* to the lesser minded sheeple.


The more sophisticated you are, or in some cases the less
sophisticated you are*, the more you realise that *the map is not the
territory*. The entity 'Europe' is an intellectual construct and has
no clearly defined real meaning that is common to all people.

Allowing such bait and switch techniques as 'we are leaving the EU =
we are leaving Europe = we are turning out backs on European culture,
and European nations and pursuing a policy of idiotic isolationism'

This is all done by simply reniforcing the nursery level concept that
the EU IS 'Europe' and is a synonym for any other use of the word
'Europe'

Simlarly a 'no [trade deal]' is empahasised as a [no trade] deal - yes
there are people who think that without a magical 'trade deal' we wont
be able to trade with Europe AT ALL. And I have met with and spoken to
them. They were very young.

This is all political metaphysics.

And that is why you need philosophy. To point that out. That these
concepts and notions are not reality itself, they are a narrative, a
story, about whatever reality is. And like all stories, they are
selective, limited,and fictionalÂ* and whilst handy to bend peoples
wills, not really that handy when it comes to dealing with the reality
of whether we are going to let Mohammed Ahmed and his 'refugee'
brothers into Britain next thursday.

The class of reality modelÂ* that *is* handy when dealing with such
mundane issues was identified by Nigel Farage as 'common sense'.

Other handy models are e.g. 'physics'Â* and 'chemistry'. Mostly these
work, too.

Models that dont work, but *make stupid people feel good* are
'socialism' 'emotional intelligence' 'religion' and so on. All
designed to make people feel that they are fundamentally excellent and
valuable members of society, when they are in fact just parasitic ****s.

*I have found that illiterate labourers, who are so humble in their
own ability to think in complex terms, tend to be immune from the
'bull**** baffles brains' syndrome that infects people who think they
are intelligent, right up to when you get to the serious geniuses, who
have got to the bleeding edge and realised that after all, we know
**** all for sure either...and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either.
Both second rate minds.

Ah, well, there ya go, squire.Â* Same time tomorrah?


--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
news
The Natural Philosopher formulated on Tuesday :
*I have found that illiterate labourers, who are so humble in their own
ability to think in complex terms, tend to be immune from the 'bull****
baffles brains' syndrome that infects people who think they are
intelligent, right up to when you get to the serious geniuses, who have
got to the bleeding edge and realised that after all, we know **** all
for sure either...
and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either. Both second rate minds.

So who, in your opinion, demonstrates a first rate mind?

He already said that today. Can't even remember his name now tho.

Hilarious how bitter and twisted the turnip is becoming.

On 25/12/2017 08:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/12/17 20:43, Bill Wright wrote:
What are the parameters that set the speed of electromagnetic
transmission in a vacuum? I've googled everywhere but I can't find the
answer. It's easy enough to find the figure but WHY? Why not
29,979,245.8 metres per second or 2,997,924,580 metres per second?

Bill

Not everything has a cause. Some things Just Are.

God was the traditional explanation of course.


I don't mean 'why' in the sense of there being a sentient being that
decided it (my personal philosophy is long past that); I mean 'why' in
the sense of wondering what the parameters are. Others have answered it.

Bill

On 25/12/2017 08:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

then look up permittivity and permeability of free space

But that doesnt do more than transform the question into 'why is that
the value of the permittivity and permeability of free space'?


Yes.
Bill

On 25/12/2017 08:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think what he's asking is why it's a constant, ie what makes it so,
and why it is what it is rather than something else?

Got any answer?

Because if it wasnt what it is, the world wouldn't be what it is, and in
all likelihood he wouldn't be wherever here is to ask such damn fool
questions.

So finding yourself in the very unusual position of not being able to
concoct some bull**** answer you resort to abusing the questioner.

I had an RI teacher like that. My awkward questions were met by him
making me stand in the corridor.

Bill

On 25/12/2017 09:25, Tim Streater wrote:

AIUI, there are about 26 physical constants (such as speed of light)
for the values of which there is no theoretical explanation known
today. That is, it's as if God (I use the term for convenience) has 26
knobs to turn to set these values and launch the universe. They could
have any values, these constants, and life would not be possible in
most of the resulting universes.


That's interesting. My goodness, wouldn't it have saved a lot of bother
if He'd chosen an unworkable combination?

Bill

On 25/12/2017 09:51, John Hall wrote:

Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative universes
exist in which some or all of those constants have different values.

There are places not far from here where different values are
universally applied.

Bill

On 25/12/2017 13:43, Cursitor Doom wrote:



Natural philosophy was the term for science back in Newton's day. I'm
guessing you must surely know that, since it's your adopted moniker.

They had to call it philosophy because they hadn't really figured out
about doing proper experiments and that (well at best it was early days)
so they had to kinda guess about why things were as they were, and
that's what philosophy is really. Just chewing the fat and getting
nowhere. It's another of those devices that otherwise unemployable
people use to get a salary out of the those of us who actually do a job
that benefits humanity. It's the same with linguistics. They only
invented that because the Indo-European theory was wearing a bit thin
and otherwise there would have been a lot of profs out of work. Can't
have profs doing proper jobs, not the done thing, so they invented
linguistics. Remember when plate tectonics came in? A lot of profs had
two choices: either disown their life's work or get the sack. Most of
them managed to make the transition. I don't know if they actually burnt
their own books. The next one will be when the tide turns against global
warming as caused by mankind. A few foolhardy youngsters will speak out;
most will be blackballed but a few won't; gradually the consensus will
drift just as the magnetic poles drift, then like the poles there will
be a sudden flip. Luckily by then most of the people who've made their
money from global warming will be retired, so the damage won't be too
bad. I suppose a few guys in their late 50s who were a bit slow on the
uptake will be the collateral damage, but to be honest I think they'll
deserve it for clinging on and propagating the bull**** long after they
should have kept quiet. The sensible thing is to be like the Vicar of Bray.

Bill

On 25/12/2017 18:46, Tim Streater wrote:

Mind you, that idea could be scrapped at any time. Remember phlogiston
and the luminiferous ether. Both though to exist to explain observed
phenomena, both ideas scrapped as sharper minds thought up other
explanations.

Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global warming
over the next few decades.

Bill

On 25/12/2017 18:49, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 12:49:16 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

I'm beginning to wish I hadn't asked.

So why did you? There must be more appropriate groups.

How could he prevent being asked?

Bill

On 25/12/2017 05:14, Iggy wrote:
replying to Bill Wright, Iggy wrote:
Lies, Liars and Frauds...to put it precisely. Space "science" (laughable
non-science) is the biggest bunch of contradictions ever. They claim
authority, simply make an outlandish statement, never provide any proof nor
duplication and the droolers obey. They tell us only what Real Science has
duplicated and measured, though their patently ridiculous Big Bang
crushed it
all. Therefore, your speeds can't exist...according to them. However, your
speeds must and do exist...according to them.

Did you check or proof read your ramblings before pressing return in
your website, using dated software?

You come across as not having a clue. Quoting text might have helped,
though perhaps not!

On 26/12/2017 10:23, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

**** all for sure either...and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either.
Both second rate minds.

So who, in your opinion, demonstrates a first rate mind?

Imsen

Bill

On 27/12/17 00:55, Bill Wright wrote:
On 25/12/2017 08:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think what he's asking is why it's a constant, ie what makes it so,
and why it is what it is rather than something else?

Got any answer?

Because if it wasnt what it is, the world wouldn't be what it is, and
in all likelihood he wouldn't be wherever here is to ask such damn
fool questions.

So finding yourself in the very unusual position of not being able to
concoct some bull**** answer you resort to abusing the questioner.

what are you on about?

Thst is in fact the correct answer. With slice of humour added...

I had an RI teacher like that. My awkward questions were met by him
making me stand in the corridor.

Bill

On 27/12/17 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:
On 25/12/2017 18:46, Tim Streater wrote:

Mind you, that idea could be scrapped at any time. Remember phlogiston
and the luminiferous ether. Both though to exist to explain observed
phenomena, both ideas scrapped as sharper minds thought up other
explanations.

Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global warming
over the next few decades.

like watching paint dry?

already people are bored with it: its lost the power to amaze, so it
will be replaced by something else.

but its got nothing to do with science so I don't know why you
introduced it.


Bill

On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 01:45:59 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
On 25/12/2017 13:43, Cursitor Doom wrote:



Natural philosophy was the term for science back in Newton's day. I'm
guessing you must surely know that, since it's your adopted moniker.

They had to call it philosophy because they hadn't really figured out
about doing proper experiments and that (well at best it was early days)
so they had to kinda guess about why things were as they were, and
that's what philosophy is really. Just chewing the fat and getting
nowhere. It's another of those devices that otherwise unemployable
people use to get a salary out of the those of us who actually do a job
that benefits humanity. It's the same with linguistics. They only
invented that because the Indo-European theory was wearing a bit thin
and otherwise there would have been a lot of profs out of work. Can't
have profs doing proper jobs, not the done thing, so they invented
linguistics. Remember when plate tectonics came in? A lot of profs had
two choices: either disown their life's work or get the sack. Most of
them managed to make the transition. I don't know if they actually burnt
their own books. The next one will be when the tide turns against global
warming as caused by mankind. A few foolhardy youngsters will speak out;
most will be blackballed but a few won't; gradually the consensus will
drift just as the magnetic poles drift, then like the poles there will
be a sudden flip. Luckily by then most of the people who've made their
money from global warming will be retired, so the damage won't be too
bad. I suppose a few guys in their late 50s who were a bit slow on the
uptake will be the collateral damage, but to be honest I think they'll
deserve it for clinging on and propagating the bull**** long after they
should have kept quiet. The sensible thing is to be like the Vicar of Bray.

Bill

What drivel.
Did you never do punctuation at school?

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 25/12/2017 09:51, John Hall wrote:

Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative
universes exist in which some or all of those constants have
different values.

There are places not far from here where different values are
universally applied.



Ursa Minor maybe?

On 27/12/2017 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:

Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global warming
over the next few decades.

No it won't, you'll be dead.

On 26/12/2017 06:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Look at Brexit/Remoaner arguments. Two fundamentally different
metaphsyical positions based on opposed views of a certain political
structure - the European Union.

There are more than two.

One view holds that it is however
flawed, a fundamentally benevolent institution.

The other view holds that it is a pernicious self seeking lying
anti-democratic and thoroughly dangerous organisation.

There is the group who see the EU as their route to promotion, and for
their potential future personal financial gain they will put up with
whatever the EU chooses to do. Unfortunately many of these are MPs who
will stall Brexit as best they can, because they are only risking other
people's money.

Then there is the group that has been convinced by a flawed educational
system that what you have got is better than what you might otherwise
have had. They are frightened of change; the realities of the character
of what they are changing from is irrelevant.

Then there is the group that views the EU as a Ponzi scheme, which needs
to keep introducing new members to feed the expectations of the early
joiners, and wants to jump ship as soon as possible. Like all Ponzi
schemes it will ultimately go bust when it has sucked in all the
gullible and there is nowhere else to go for financial props. By then
the originators of the scheme will have made their millions and have
retired, leaving others to face the impending doom.

I have no doubt that there are other groups, but this subset is
sufficient to prove that the perceived character of the institution
isn't the only driver.

Jim

On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 13:43:50 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 11:57:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/12/17 11:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 09:10:43 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

But it's a philosophical question. And I thought from your name that
you might have an answer.

Natural Philosophy has nowt much to do with philosophy; it's simply
the archaic term for science.

And you think that science has nowt to do with philosophy? How quaint!"


Natural philosophy was the term for science back in Newton's day. I'm
guessing you must surely know that, since it's your adopted moniker.

He's long been just "A Ghost in the Machine" afaiac in this NG but I
always thought that monicker was a matter of irony whether by accident or
design.

--
Johnny B Good

On 25/12/2017 09:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/12/17 20:59, newshound wrote:
On 24/12/2017 20:43, Bill Wright wrote:
What are the parameters that set the speed of electromagnetic
transmission in a vacuum? I've googled everywhere but I can't find
the answer. It's easy enough to find the figure but WHY? Why not
29,979,245.8 metres per second or 2,997,924,580 metres per second?

Bill

Start here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr..._wave_equation

then look up permittivity and permeability of free space

But that doesnt do more than transform the question into 'why is that
the value of the permittivity and permeability of free space'?

AIUI, there are about 26 physical constants (such as speed of light)
for the values of which there is no theoretical explanation known
today. That is, it's as if God (I use the term for convenience) has 26
knobs to turn to set these values and launch the universe. They could
have any values, these constants, and life would not be possible in
most of the resulting universes.

There are thoughts that the speed of sound changes over time, in much
the same way the gravitational constant is believed to be changing
(excluding the known 5.9 year cycle).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-v...ntal_constants

It is therefore possible that the goldilocks period we are in may change
into one that can't sustain carbon life-forms, who knows!

I do think any claim that there are 26 "constants", when we don't know
the origin of these numbers, is a bit risky.

On 27/12/17 12:49, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 13:43:50 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 11:57:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/12/17 11:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 09:10:43 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

But it's a philosophical question. And I thought from your name that
you might have an answer.

Natural Philosophy has nowt much to do with philosophy; it's simply
the archaic term for science.

And you think that science has nowt to do with philosophy? How quaint!"


Natural philosophy was the term for science back in Newton's day. I'm
guessing you must surely know that, since it's your adopted moniker.

He's long been just "A Ghost in the Machine" afaiac in this NG but I
always thought that monicker was a matter of irony whether by accident or
design.

Just goes to show how wrong you are on all counts really


--
Of what good are dead warriors? €¦ Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory €¦ The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On 27/12/17 13:04, Fredxx wrote:
I do think any claim that there are 26 "constants", when we don't know
the origin of these numbers, is a bit risky.


That sounds intelligent, but on close examination, it is completely
meaningless.

Then I looked at the poster...

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 27/12/2017 05:55, Tjoepstil wrote:
On 27/12/17 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:
On 25/12/2017 18:46, Tim Streater wrote:

Mind you, that idea could be scrapped at any time. Remember phlogiston
and the luminiferous ether. Both though to exist to explain observed
phenomena, both ideas scrapped as sharper minds thought up other
explanations.

Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global warming
over the next few decades.

like watching paint dry?

already people are bored with it: its lost the power to amaze, so it
will be replaced by something else.

but its got nothing to do with science so I don't know why you
introduced it.

As an example of a bandwagon. Like the hoola hoop.

Bill

On 27/12/2017 08:58, Woody wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 25/12/2017 09:51, John Hall wrote:

Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative
universes exist in which some or all of those constants have
different values.

There are places not far from here where different values are
universally applied.



Ursa Minor maybe?


Edlington

Bill

On 27/12/2017 11:40, Java Jive wrote:
On 27/12/2017 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:

Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global warming
over the next few decades.

No it won't, you'll be dead.

Might be, might not. Who knows?

Bill

On 25/12/2017 08:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/12/17 20:59, newshound wrote:
On 24/12/2017 20:43, Bill Wright wrote:
What are the parameters that set the speed of electromagnetic
transmission in a vacuum? I've googled everywhere but I can't find
the answer. It's easy enough to find the figure but WHY? Why not
29,979,245.8 metres per second or 2,997,924,580 metres per second?

Bill

Start here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr..._wave_equation

then look up permittivity and permeability of free space

But that doesnt do more than transform the question into 'why is that
the value of the permittivity and permeability of free space'?



No, but it tells you there are other more fundamantal measurable
parameters which have particular values, and these fix the speed of
light. So it takes you back one step.