Self Deleted.

 

...

What is it with you?

How does it feel that I live in your head 24/7 -- and have been for years?

Can I suggest that there are better ways to spend your time than thinking about me?

I promise that I rarely think of you in return. In fact, you've been on my ignore list for years. I have to "unignore" occasionally to remind myself that you are obsessed by me.

I think I am flattered, but also slightly disturbed.

Stay away from sharp objects.

 

Can I suggest that there are better ways to spend your time than thinking about me?

I think I am flattered, but also slightly disturbed.

DUDE! Having fun with you. There are definitely better ways to spend my time - and I do spend time not thinking of you. However, it appears you seem to be somewhat easily offended so I'll leave you alone from now on.

I have to "unignore" occasionally to remind myself that you are obsessed by me.

I know I've been on your iggy list. I don't know what to say to you about that. If you wish - ignore me. Or, as I do you, ignore you but without the iggy button.

 

 

Oh well.

 

@joeyd999 Sir, if I've offended you - I apologize. Being hurtful has never been my goal. Not toward you nor toward anyone else. And I've had more conflict with others than I have with you. I still respect all members on this website.

 

@joeyd999 Sir, if I've offended you - I apologize. Being hurtful has never been my goal. Not toward you nor toward anyone else. And I've had more conflict with others than I have with you. I still respect all members on this website.

Hmmm, this joke went over my head. Some of you tell really obscure and subtle ones!

 

View attachment 317356

​

 

I wish I lived in Jessica Alba's head.

 

I wish I lived in Jessica Alba's head.

Not where I'd like to be.

 

Not where I'd like to be.

+1

 

+1
View attachment 317635

Yeah, I think that too.

 

 

 

View attachment 317638

That was very, very good ... as people with affinity towards science, we're taught not to accept "dogma", and yet axioms are pushed on us, which are pretty much like dogma, except with a politically correct word.

 

That was very, very good ... as people with affinity towards science, we're taught not to accept "dogma", and yet axioms are pushed on us, which are pretty much like dogma, except with a politically correct word.

People laughed but this guy was right.

and there's also unknown knowns.

 

People laughed but this guy was right.

and there's also unknown knowns.

My head is spinning

 

That was very, very good ... as people with affinity towards science, we're taught not to accept "dogma", and yet axioms are pushed on us, which are pretty much like dogma, except with a politically correct word.

What axioms are you referring to that are pushed on us? It's hard to talk to vague generalities.

In most fields, the role of axioms is kept as limited as possible and the choice of axioms is careful to make them as self-evident as possible. For instance, the axiom that there exists an empty set in set theory.

In physics, most areas are based on surprisingly few basic assumptions and everything else derived from there. Most of those assumptions, such as F=dp/dt, are based on extensive empirical observation -- the assumption is that the relationships that describe those observations are universally applicable. To the degree possible, students are not asked to blindly accept the empirically-based relationship -- In well-designed physics curricula, they are usually tasked with making their own observations and comparing it to the predictions made by applying the relationship. They are then asked to consider the reasonableness, and possible limitations, on assuming that the relationship can be applied universally. Furthermore, the reasonableness of those assumptions are not simply accepted once and declared to be henceforth unchallengeable. For instance, we might establish that F=dp/dt applies extremely well as human-scale objects, say from from marbles to mountains, and initially accept the assumption that it also applies from the subatomic to the intergalactic scales, as well. But that does nothing more than create a list of challenges that people regularly take up to try to disprove the validity of that assumption and increasingly small and larger scales.

That doesn't strike me as dogma.

 

What axioms are you referring to that are pushed on us? It's hard to talk to vague generalities.

In most fields, the role of axioms is kept as limited as possible and the choice of axioms is careful to make them as self-evident as possible. For instance, the axiom that there exists an empty set in set theory.

In physics, most areas are based on surprisingly few basic assumptions and everything else derived from there. Most of those assumptions, such as F=dp/dt, are based on extensive empirical observation -- the assumption is that the relationships that describe those observations are universally applicable. To the degree possible, students are not asked to blindly accept the empirically-based relationship -- In well-designed physics curricula, they are usually tasked with making their own observations and comparing it to the predictions made by applying the relationship. They are then asked to consider the reasonableness, and possible limitations, on assuming that the relationship can be applied universally. Furthermore, the reasonableness of those assumptions are not simply accepted once and declared to be henceforth unchallengeable. For instance, we might establish that F=dp/dt applies extremely well as human-scale objects, say from from marbles to mountains, and initially accept the assumption that it also applies from the subatomic to the intergalactic scales, as well. But that does nothing more than create a list of challenges that people regularly take up to try to disprove the validity of that assumption and increasingly small and larger scales.

That doesn't strike me as dogma.

Well... I have no problem accepting (while they're useful) some principles that humanity has learned and verified again and again, such as Relativity. Some physicist argue that the speed of light is equivalent to the speed of causality. But they are assuming, in my very humble opinion, that there are no new physics to be discovered on this issue. That's the closest equivalent to scientific "dogma" that I can think of at this moment.

But let me make my point clearer. Yes, I do believe that axioms are necessary in order to try to understand reality, or any type of phenomena for that matter. And yes, you're right about the need to keep the number of axioms at their barest possible minimum so as to be able to build the most consistent model of reality in our minds ... but it is when people speak as if axioms themselves cannot be questioned (and hence my comparison to dogma) that I have a problem with.

 

Well... I have no problem accepting (while they're useful) some principles that humanity has learned and verified again and again, such as Relativity. Some physicist argue that the speed of light is equivalent to the speed of causality. But they are assuming, in my very humble opinion, that there are no new physics to be discovered on this issue. That's the closest equivalent to scientific "dogma" that I can think of at this moment.

But let me make my point clearer. Yes, I do believe that axioms are necessary in order to try to understand reality, or any type of phenomena for that matter. And yes, you're right about the need to keep the number of axioms at their barest possible minimum so as to be able to build the most consistent model of reality in our minds ... but it is when people speak as if axioms themselves cannot be questioned (and hence my comparison to dogma) that I have a problem with.

The speed of light vacuum. Physical particles can travel FTL in medium like water.
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/cerenkov-radiation/

"they are assuming, in my very humble opinion, that there are no new physics to be discovered on this issue"
I don't think that's the correct assumption at all. The gold standard is evidence. There is no evidence of new physics discovered on this issue in any physical theory of the known universe.
If there was evidence, theories would instantaneously happen to explain it as we saw with the FTL neutrino joke.

Think about it. Once causality is broken, free will is also lost.