Are scientific concepts a metaphorical fantasy? | Rupert Sheldrake, Güneş Taylor, Peter Atkins...

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Would our understanding of reality shift if we limited ourselves to scientific language? To watch the full debate, visit iai.tv/video/reality-fantasy-and-metaphor?KZbin&+comment

[@KaliFissure]

Metaphors are both truth and fiction. Like poetry they refine relationships to essentials but in doing so omit some details

[@brendawilliams8062]

Thankyou. Well said.

[@smlanka4u]

'Binary mathematical physics and Buddhism' paper explains the truth better than String Theory.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@smlanka4u what is truth?

[@smlanka4u]

@@brendawilliams8062, There are ultimate realities in the universe. Dimensional Interactions could make 4 main elements that become 24 matter elements. An initial dimensional unit could emerge first, and then 23 matter units could emerge around it. Buddhism mentions 23 matter units that make matter body/particle that can make connected formations/atoms. Many matter units and initial units could make matter and life.

[@brothermine2292]

This 10-minute intro lacks what I think is the important analysis: the costs versus benefits of using metaphors. For example, what is the cost of having thousands of physicists believe there's a nearly uncountable number of universes in a multiverse? What is the cost of using the "scissors & paper" metaphor to describe gene editing to a lay audience or to biology undergrads? I can think of two important possible costs, in general: (1) investing inordinate resources on pure math that might not eventually pay for itself with useful applications, and (2) loading down promising young minds with mental baggage that will confine their thinking to incorrect paradigms, preventing some breakthroughs.

[@edwardhunia6315]

Hence the use of metaphor to ensble the transmission of information. I don't think you have to worry about students being over burdened during their formative years toward graduation and higher honors. One of my class mates was doing his double bachelor degrees in computer science and electrical engineering... and he forgot stuff that wasn't relevant to passing and keeping his 3.8 overall grade average. I talked with him about work we did in the previous semester, and he didn't even recall how to do the calculation. The work load is far too much to hold even just doing a single bachelor degree in the sciences... and he was a clever guy.

[@brothermine2292]

@@edwardhunia6315 : An anecdote is an unpersuasive argument. Do you have a more compelling argument than someone you knew who had a mediocre memory?

[@edwardhunia6315]

@@brothermine2292 no. Despite a mediocre memory, he completed his double degrees in 3 years... my memory is less than par unfortunately... Speaking from my experience the work load is too much for an average student to hold and being new to the sciences made the learning curve very steep.

[@brothermine2292]

@@edwardhunia6315 : So you have only that anecdote, about a smart person who performed okay despite a mediocre memory. Anecdotes are very weak evidence... not statistically significant.

[@peterclark6290]

Hilary, the basis of reality is logic and Maths is an interpretation of that logic. Once you have defined the terms (what is a 1, a 2, what is a hypotenuse, etc., to 'create' a sub-branch called Maths) the logic is not surrendered. E.g. A reasonable interpretation of the phenomena of this Universe is that it is entirely based on a binary logic provided by attractive and repellent perpetual-energy sub-particles, a handful of base constants and Time which are imposed as abstract limitations on the resultant (and compounded) 'field' interactions of these sub-particles. Which we will never be able to prove - the speed of light prevents gathering 'evidence' beneath the cell wall of an atom - we can hypothesise but never with any but pathological confidence. Thus even 'mass' is a construct, usable, but there's always Entropy...

[@Dismythed]

The pythagorean theorem is not a "prediction". It's a calculation that was developed to accurately explain the mathematical relationships of the two smaller sides to the hypotenuse. If you know the measurements of two sides, then you know the third. There are no variables that can change that. We do have information that the hypotenuse is one side of a square that has an area equal to the sum of the area of the squares of the other two sides. That is simply facts from which facts are derived. A prediction is a guess assuming no missing variables (where variables possible) about what will be found after a measurement is made or about what is causing the phenomenon. 2 + 2 is not a prediction of 4. It's a declaration from which we derive a definitive and nonvariable result. A prediction is that we have 2a + 2b = 5 if we assume that a is 0 barring other factors and b is 1 barring other factors.

[@jeremiahwatson1611]

You cannot derive without first formalizing. A kind of static and abstract prediction. Scientists find ways to predict how a thing will behave by formalizing it's observed behavior, or, by reasoning beyond the current model. Experimental/theoretical.

[@Dismythed]

@@jeremiahwatson1611 But that involves variables. Pythagorean theorem has zero variables. It is 2 + 2. You will invariably get the same answer under ANY circumstance. You can apply it toward a larger equation that has variables or in which one of the two other sides are vatiable, but the equation itself is non-variable.

[@firstal3799]

It's not just getting concept across. Modern physics ys a philosophical nightmare

[@samrowbotham8914]

You don't understand Metaphors.

[@junacebedo888]

String theory (multi verse) uses metaphors of soap bubbles creating more bubbles. True, but 'bubbles' are IN this universe- not OUTSIDE

[@user_375a82]

Its really simple if you take the stance that we live in a virtual world. So, in which case, we cannot possibly get below the Planck area - why? Easy - there are no co-ordinates to get there - you're at the limit. SAme in a computer - you cannot get below 1 pixel - there simply isn't anything there. That's where the "magical" quantum world is confusing us because we are trying to say there must be a determinate something below a pixel size. There simply is not. But you need to accept that we are in a virtual world like in a computer, where the "cosmic processor" is simply a twirling black hole containing data and we live in its projection. Is that so hard to comprehend? Physics and mathematics? - careers, salaries, reputations.

[@tajabdullah.malaysia]

I disagree to compare RNA splicing to paper cutting that would destroy the RNA entirely. Rather the exons, coding regions are joined together to generate mature messenger RNA.

[@rajendratayya8400]

Language is recognising “who“. Mathematics is reasoning “how”. Nature is governed equally by both criteria.

[@mszabol69]

Asking why Mathematics is so effective at describing reality is a little bit like asking "Why is English so Good at telling Stories?" If it weren't for the uncanny effectiveness of the English Language, then Shakespeare would be False. And since Shakespeare is quite obviously true, English must have some special property.

[@bluesque9687]

A good picture is worth a thousand words! Mathematics don't feel like a language.... unless one gets into Godel's ideas... it seems more like drawing rigorous diagrams!!

[@mszabol69]

@@bluesque9687 For people trained in Math it is a language. They even write poems back and forth to themselves in Math. They tell jokes in equations. It's a rich world of description and meaning, if a bit abstract.

[@bluesque9687]

@@mszabol69 Well, i agree... mathematics done for purposes of serving mathematics can become a language! But for a physician trying to define laws of the universe it is more like a toolkit!

[@TylerClibbon]

god i watch all these videos and i cant shake the feeling that rupert is just destroying everyone over and over, i'm so impatient for him to take the world stage and revolutionize science already, why is he still doing these podcasts with 5000 views when he deserves billions?

[@edwardhunia6315]

I believe that multiverse theory will play a role in the futute... but I'm presupposing the estblishment and verification of time translation symmetry breaking physics. Nevertheless, the fact that S Carroll and the like have established it before the mechanism that can potentially enable material equivalence violations seems a strange turn... cart before horse. Nevertheless quantum mechanics did suggest the possibility but general relativity breaks quantum applications on the macro scale.

[@JoyNUND]

I wondered this many times during my whole life

[@charlesholder8957]

Logic based on a false premise, leading to a cogent consequent, doesn't mean the premise is correct. A good example is the metaphysical idea of something from nothing or multiple dimensions (wishful thinking that science is always valid).

[@pwnmeisterage]

Oversimplified, flawed, partly-inaccurate metaphors are necessary to communicate complex, comprehensive, technical information to simple, uncomprehending, nontechnical listeners. Of course they're "deceptive" and "misleading" ... but they aren't necessary (and they aren't used) when the intended audience understands the proper terminology.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Thankyou

[@smlanka4u]

There is a theory called The 0Theory that works better than String Theory.

[@KaliFissure]

QM has dogmatized the thinking of a couple of generations now and as Einstein said " you can't fix a problem using the same tools which created the problem" The Entire probability field of every particle is it's actual physical self. The photon is a spherical ripple caused by the implosion of an electron orbital. The speed of field collapse determining wavelength. of photon. A fluid flow model using a modifies Maxwell is next evolution. Inflow=negative charge. Outflow=positive charge. This is our manifold... Sin(cos(u/2)cos(v/2),cos(u/2)sin(v/2),sin(u)/2) 0

[@Dismythed]

Where do you read that a photon is an imploding electron orbital? Barring that, what is your reasoning?

[@Viccobalta]

In short, yes

[@justg2310]

🤯

[@deeepeee695]

sheldrake = Boss

[@darkyodd]

Scientific concepts

[@peterclark6290]

(2) Maths is the study of abstract representations of the lower order attributes of any phenomena. Science is the study of the substantiated attributes of phenomena. Maths is a multi-applicable tool that is an adjunct to many human interests, but left to its own devices it - invents imaginary numbers, infuses the zero with power (m°=1) and still persists with Set theory despite Ramsey et al debunking it over a century ago. Maths can be an inordinate waste of some of our brightest minds as Relativity, Multi, Black and Dark quasi-religious propositions, Time reversal claims, and Quantum research with man-made tools attest.

[@Edruezzi]

Oh no, Sheldrake the witchdoctor.