A dialogue is so hard to find.
I’d be curious if anyone were into looking at this and perhaps using it as a starting point for a little discussion?
Tuesday, July 15, 2014 Nasif S. Nahle - a look at Science in a Vacuum http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/07/nasif-nahle-science-in-vacuum-1.html
From the link you provided:
Myself, I believe in my understanding. I do so because my decades long skeptical pursuit of information is a process, a life's adventure.Everything is a process? From here] Process philosophy:
But in its simplest form, process philosophy is about engaging in the process of what we are, what we do, and how we can guide, develop and create our own future.Novelty and adventure:
The authorities of history were interesting, but not to be followed blindly. Experience and adventure, and the risk of the unknown: these are what drove his metaphysics.Events:
Process emphasizes the space between two points. It's neither the start that's important, nor the end; but the travelling between. In the case of Whitehead, this travelling in between is what makes up reality.Nothing is true:
A key implication of his work is that reality doesn't have to be like 'this' or like 'that'. There's no ultimate reason why we are living in this way, in this world, in this universe.Notwithstanding Whitehead's theism, process philosophy sans religion, is akin to taoist philosophy! Is change the only constant in the universe? From here]
But the Universe itself experiences continual growth, constant change, and new experiences all the time, and it does so spontaneously.Dimensionless constants?
But the Universe, very clearly, doesn’t care what units-of-measurement you use! So we can create dimensionless constants, or combinations of these physical constants that are simply just numbers, numbers that describe how different parts of the Universe relate to one another.So, physical constants are just numbers. And how do these constants emerge?
This is, I’ll note, a source of much distress for theorists, who hoped that these constants — the fundamental masses of the elementary particles — would either be part of some pattern (they’re not), calculable from first principles (they’re not), or would emerge dynamically from some larger framework, like a GUT or string theory (they don’t).What we don't know:
We don’t yet know where the values of these constants come from, or whether that’s something that will ever be known with the information available in our Universe. Some people chalk them up to anthropics or appeal to the multiverse; I haven’t given up on our Universe just yet, though! Our journey through the cosmos continues, and there’s so much more still to learn.:lol:
Not sure what discussion you’re looking for. The idea of “argument from authority” in general? How we determine what is authoritative? Or just this particular guy? Discussing a non-authority appearing on Fox News to debunk one of the largest databases of information in the world is not interesting to me. Or are you focusing on his “it’s a lie” statement?
Not sure what discussion you're looking for. The idea of "argument from authority" in general? How we determine what is authoritative? Or just this particular guy? Discussing a non-authority appearing on Fox News to debunk one of the largest databases of information in the world is not interesting to me. Or are you focusing on his "it's a lie" statement?Funny it took me a couple moments to click on the FAUX NEWs connection. Nasif's gets around to a lot more that FOX. Not sure what discussion I'm "looking" for - just trying to figure out how other people think. Or process information... From my above linked post
... Now, here's where the difference comes in, and it has to do with that all important "ego thing" The big question: How full of our selves are we? Myself, I believe in my understanding. I do so because my decades long skeptical pursuit of information is a process, a life's adventure. I am open to new information and validating that info is the game. I have had my ego bruised and battered, publicly and privately by having my presumed understanding shown to be way out of date, or way off the mark. But that's part of the fun - like getting bruised while cavorting on canyon lands slickrock, it's part of the game of life and learning, otherwise we wouldn't be out there in the first place. I appreciate that my understanding is provisional, always vulnerable to newer or better information. Thing is, when proven wrong while the bruises heal whole new realms of understanding and appreciation have opened up to us. I love it! To me that's what life and growing and being witness to this incredible creation we were born into is all about. I also understand that folks who have spent years and live's focused on studying specific issues know way the heck more than I do. Experts are experts for a very good reason! And though at times I might think I know plenty and them mistaken - I'd never imagine that my fragmentary knowledge could trump their professional understanding. Only fools could ever presume to achieve expert status with the ease of a bit of dedicated part-time study. And only a fool can't accept that the higher math of science is a "For Members Only" affair - if you don't comprehend it, you don't comprehend it and should butt out. Making sweeping and earth-shattering claims with fragmentary understanding belongs to the realm delusion. ...
Don’t know much about Dr. Nasif, but from what the article describes he is someone who at last devotes part time to studying other subjects outside his specialty.
We in general should have more people who actually read books, and less people whose ‘‘education’’ is limited to documentaries and newspapers.
I am sick of people watching physics documentaries and acting like they just got a PhD. This may also happen with the 1st group, but at least they put in some
effort to learn.