Thread

1. general_reveal · 1789632157 · focus · HN ↗

   [dead]

   1. rramadass · 1789641024 · focus · HN ↗

      Later down in the essay, Dirac himself answers this;

      With this kind of cosmological picture one is led to suppose that there was a beginning of time, and that it is meaningless to inquire into what happened before then. One can get a rough idea of the geometrical relationships this involves by imagining the present to be the surface of a sphere, going into the past to be going in towards the centre of the sphere, and going into the future to be going outwards. There is then no limit to how far one may go into the future, but there is a limit to how far one can go into the past, corresponding to when one has reached the centre of the sphere. The beginning of time provides a natural origin from which to measure the time of any event. The result is usually called the epoch of that event. Thus the present epoch is 2 x 109 years [actually 2x10^9].

      One further point in connection with the new cosmology is worthy of note. At the beginning of time the laws of Nature were probably very different from what they are now. Thus we should consider the laws of Nature as continually changing with the epoch, instead of as holding uniformly throughout space-time. This idea was first put forward by Milne, who worked it out on the assumptions that the universe at a given epoch is roughly everywhere uniform and spherically symmetrical. I find these assumptions not very satisfying, because the local departures from uniformity are so great and are of such essential importance for our world of life that it seems unlikely there should be a principle of uniformity overlying them. Further, as we already have the laws of Nature depending on the epoch, we should expect them also to depend on position in space, in order to preserve the beautiful idea of the theory of relativity there is fundamental similarity between space and time. This goes more drastically against Milne's assumptions than a mere lack of uniformity in the distribution of matter.

      Show respect to Mathematicians/Physicists/etc. many of whom had studied Philosophy and i dare say had a better understanding/insight of it than mere academic Philosophers. Why? Because they don't go off into la-la land but try very hard to have both observed evidence and a mathematical model of it match cleanly via a Theory.

      For your edification, read first "Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes" followed by "Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenberg".

      1. pixl97 · 1789666364 · focus · HN ↗

         The difference between science and woo is science makes falsifiable predictions.

         I mean, go back 500 years. Tell everyone that everything is actually make of fields (no not the kind you grow things in). These fields manifest waves that carry certain amounts of energy. Those bits of energy build larger structures that are still so incredibly tiny the human imagination fails. But then you take those larger structures in a pattern and it builds atoms. Those atoms are actually 99.9999999% nothing but empty space end fields of force and electricity. This is why you don't pass thru things. Oh yea, these tiny empty things connect to each other in predictable ways creating molecules that are the basis of life. Just a tiny speck of them contains quadrillions of these molecules, crazy tiny.

         [The people you are talking to]: Get the wood, we're burning this witch.

         1. undershirt · 1789670966 · focus · HN ↗

            We cant even verify if these fields are real though. It is an ordered mythology for making predictions that work. If I have a machine that can reproduce the footprints of an animal no one has ever seen, I have not discovered that animal. (This is personally a more powerful analogy than saying "the map is not the territory" which gets at the same point.)

            1. GoblinSlayer · 1789682536 · focus · HN ↗

               Did you verify that we can't verify?

               1. undershirt · 1789688631 · focus · HN ↗

                  I think so. Are you familiar with epistemology and how assumptions can be formally justified?

                  1. GoblinSlayer · 1789724796 · focus · HN ↗

                     Are you familiar with fallibilism? Aristotle justified geocentrism too. Who's to say your justification is correct for real this time?

                     1. undershirt · 1789749674 · focus · HN ↗

                        Fallibilism seems to smuggle a claim of certainty about how we can't be certain about anything, which leads to a performative contradiction when brought up in an argument where people are trying to arrive at certainty.

                        1. GoblinSlayer · 1789806220 · focus · HN ↗

                           If you don't like such skepticism, then it should be okay to believe in fields. Where do you draw a line, how much skepticism is enough? Does radio exist? You can't see it, just like other fields.

                           1. undershirt · 1789832123 · focus · HN ↗

                              I was only addressing your argument. If fallibilism leads to a contradiction then it doesn't work to undermine all agnostic arguments against the actual reality of fields.

                              My warning is that science becomes something like a 'scientism' religion when "real" is used as shorthand for "effective abstraction". Science has philosophical boundaries that isn't part of the science curriculum.

                              1. GoblinSlayer · 1789986943 · focus · HN ↗

                                 It was your argument that you verified that we can't verify. But if we can't verify, then how could you verify? Fallibilism doesn't lead to a contradiction, it only rejects infallibility. If you think agnosticism helps you prove your infallibility, prove it. Also radio demonstrates that your approach is unworkable.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.