The Scientific Paradigm, Time etc.

source: ...
seth: 2006-05-16 08:02:46 M 2006-05-16 07:39:04 3561 seth 2006-05-16 06:27:13 3561 On the scientific paradigm I was somewhat agreeing with you on the Scientific paradigm. Far from being objective, science seems to be more of a collection of people who operate on a body of publishing, instruments, conferences, hierarchies of inportant people perhaps headed by nobel laureates etc. I don't think one creates a paradigm with every measurement,however. There are specific definitions for measuring existing already within the paradigm. The Bureau of Standards, the atomic clock etc all define units of measurement in weights & measures & time. It's not that we create a paradigm with each measurement, it's that the body of science hangs on an giant network of assumptions and paradigms. Every single measurement is dependant on that network. Change the network ... change the paradigms ... and the measurement will change ... and we are not just talking about units of measure.I would bet that time itself is the biggest bug-a-boo. I suspect that the physics of some alien sience would have time factored quite differently than human science. For example you could not even have time as a dimension at all ... you could substitute entropy instead.

...I still wander back & forth on time as a dimension. It just doesn't seem like the other 3 dimensions of space. Any theory of time (change?) should account for the nice singularity around the point NOW!

Comments

Seth says
If you eliminate the subjective observer, the NOW goes away. Physics has always been about eliminating the subjective observer.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-05-18 06:34:23 3570

If you eliminate the subjective observer, the NOW goes away. Physics has always been about eliminating the subjective observer.

If I am observing subjective material & do that do I go away (disappear?).

Mark de LA says
Einstein's relativity seems to be all full of the observer.

Seth says

M 2006-05-18 07:13:19 3570

Einstein's relativity seems to be all full of the observer.

... note that i used the term "subjective observer". An instrument that measures velocity from a point in time-space does not qualify as a "subjective observer" ... one reason being that it does not have any processess/awareness called "now". This prolly can be rubbed a bit more, but that is what i meant.

Seth says

M 2006-05-18 06:46:01 3570

seth 2006-05-18 06:34:23 3570

If you eliminate the subjective observer, the NOW goes away. Physics has always been about eliminating the subjective observer.

If I am observing subjective material & do that do I go away (disappear?).

and do what? iow, what does the "that" in your respnse refer to? There may not be any distinction that can be publically specified between what you refer to as "I" and what i refered to as "subjective observer".

Mark de LA says
$that

seth 2006-05-18 08:03:49 3570

M 2006-05-18 06:46:01 3570

seth 2006-05-18 06:34:23 3570

If you eliminate the subjective observer, the NOW goes away. Physics has always been about eliminating the subjective observer.

If I am observing subjective material & do that do I go away (disappear?).

$that="eliminate the subjective observer"; which can never be done anyway

Seth says

M 2006-05-18 08:07:42 3570

$that

seth 2006-05-18 08:03:49 3570

M 2006-05-18 06:46:01 3570

seth 2006-05-18 06:34:23 3570

If you eliminate the subjective observer, the NOW goes away. Physics has always been about eliminating the subjective observer.

If I am observing subjective material & do that do I go away (disappear?).

$that="eliminate the subjective observer"; which can never be done anyway

Ok, then "If I am observing subjective material & do that do I go away" ends up being pretty much an incoherant utterance, ... if that which is called "I" is eliminated, then it cannot do anything whatsoever ... how can something that does not exist do anything?

The Scientific Paradigm, Time etc.

Tags

Comments

See Also