| Autor |
Nachricht |
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
 Verfasst am: 17. Okt 2011 17:16 Titel: |
 |
|
| Eris hat Folgendes geschrieben: | | MI hat Folgendes geschrieben: |
Could you elaborate, please? I don't really see a connection between empirical and theoretical sciences and the human concept of morality.
|
Isn't science a human concept, too? Does it exist apart from the human perception? Or can physics not work with a theory, that includes this hypothesis?
|
The art of science itself is of course a human concept - but it investigates aspects of life that aren't (given a reality around us that does not spring from the human mind - Descartes and everything). The problem is that interpreting science has always ended in dogmatism, thus the most accepted concept is that science should only try to explain how things work and help us predict the results of experiments. Thus its methods must be independent of the human mind, which means that you need to get quantitative results. Its similar for the theories: A physical theory needs to be mathematically founded and get (mathematical) results. Two rules: The theories should be the simplest possible and they should be falsifiable - at least theoretically (this rules religion out in the process).
In fact, many mathematicians believe that mathematics is not a human invention, but a universal truth and since some/many physicists believe that the universe is but a mathematical structure (this is the so called strong "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis"), finding the structure is not really a human concept such as morality is.
So, in order to prevent dogmatism, science sees its role in empirically and theoretically predict the world and explain it mathematically. The explanation and interpretation of the findings are left to others. They can be done by scientists, clerics or anybody. Of course, since the results are complex, some explaining has to be done by scientists, but this is not really considered science by most scientists. So the idea is - in order to avoid that ideas are not being heard because they do not fit into the thinking of the other scientists, which sadly happens nontheless - to divide the observation and analysis from interpretation.
Basically at least some of these ideas go back to Popper (whether this is exactly what he said, I cannot say - I still haven't read it).
For example: If scientists found free will to be an illusion of the mind, this would have nothing to do with ethics or morality. It would only be a neutral finding. What this finding would imply to our society is a very different matter - it will be discussed by most scientists, but it is not science. What would that mean for our jurisdical system, for instance?
These are questions most scientists think about, because they are human after all and the finding concerns us, too. While searching for extraterrestrial intelligence, one begins to wonder about intelligence on earth.
| Zitat: | There were experiments in Geneva at the CERN that concerned some persons. They were worried that the world or maybe even the whole universe will end, if the experiment would go on. The experiment was hacked and they had to stop the experiment. Not exactly because it was hacked, but because there were so many people afraid. A huge particle accelarator was involved.
I think, some ethics would do good to be able to defend these experiments, because it isn't right to keep science from experimenting just because there is a lack of trust in it. |
The experiments were stopped, because they had problems with some of the cooling units - but they are fine now and have been running for nearly a year now  .
You are right, some people wanted to stop the experiments (especially they feared the black hole production predicted by a few theories, because they didn't see the arguments that said that even if these existed - and this has been more or less ruled out by now - they would be no threat whatsoever), but since their arguments were to weak, they didn't change the decision.
There is of course one question that you raise, which is very important: Should we do science and how far should we go? A scientist seeks enlightenment, so he wants to go all the way, but many people don't understand it.
It is true: To some extend, doing for example experimental particle physics is luxury, but even this might turn into applications one day.
However, if something is really dangerous, one needs to take precautions - but the CERN experiments at LHC weren't.
| Zitat: | | If there is no theory up until now, is the conclusion right, that physics has no concept of consciousness, either? |
Yes, there isn't. Scientists cannot currently explain consciousness (some biologists may have very simple models and many have ideas, but that is all).
Well, that was a lot of writing . I hope some of the ideas I have came across and hopefully it wasn't too much trash among it .
Regards
MI
|
|
 |
Eris
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.08.2011
Beiträge: 73
|
| Verfasst am: 17. Okt 2011 20:52 Titel: |
|
|
Everyone who works with science knows of course Popper and the convention of falsification,
because it isn't so simple to just find evidence for a hypothesis, there will always
be a fact that is not includable. In fact, no serious scientist would say, that it
is a hundert per cent sure that there is gravity. In the end it is "just" a model.
The last time I checked, physics had no model which included the flight of the
bumblebee. Newtons Axioms weren't enough to explain it, so it is not at all wrong
in a theoretical sense to say, that the flight of the bumblebee is impossible. And
still we can watch them doing it.
About the difference of quantitative and qualitative:
It is often stated, that the psychic is exclusively of qualitative nature and
the physical should exclusively be quantitative. Phenomena have to be quantifiable
in order to be described and predicted by physics (just in case that it is an unknown fact, I want to remark, that it is the same for psychology). But, regardless of Descartes' prejudice, it is the
sensory system to use measurement in the first place. Even though the qualitative
is a domain of the psychic and physics earlier didn't observe such things as colors,
because they weren't quantifiable then, the quantitative aspect comes into focus
through human perception. The metric, the quantity - these are things coming out
of the human psyche. Only who is metric, can invent a yard stick. I hope I cited
Otto Heller the way one can recognize him.
If physics has no use for unquantifiable things, then perhaps because they have
to be made quantifiable yet.
The other idea I want to catch up with is, that neuroscientists have made some
experiments with the brain. Their conclusion was, that there is no such thing as
a free will. What conclusion can take jurisprudence out of this experimental outcome?
Only that the brain is guilty, because the brain decided and not the "I". Then again,
this would certainly not lead to a satisfactory solution.
Because then brains would have to be jailed instead.
Regards
Eris
|
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 29. Okt 2011 13:43 Titel: |
|
|
I'm sorry I didn't answer, yet, but I was very busy, I don't have internet at home at the moment und I cannot explain why, but this website and all the others of click for knowledge lag extremely in the university network.
I'll be pleased to write a long reply once I'll have internet at home!
Regards
MI
|
|
|
Eris
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.08.2011
Beiträge: 73
|
| Verfasst am: 01. Nov 2011 16:47 Titel: |
|
|
No Internet at home is a real shame, I'm sorry to hear that. I actually thought I scared you off for good  Psychology 1 : Physics 0
Take your time, since nothing's going to run away here and I don't have much time either, even though I do have Internet at home.
See you.
|
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 11. Nov 2011 20:34 Titel: |
|
|
So finally, I got internet and some time to reply. Please excuse that it's more a stream of conciousness rather than a very organised setting.
| Eris hat Folgendes geschrieben: | Everyone who works with science knows of course Popper and the convention of falsification,
because it isn't so simple to just find evidence for a hypothesis, there will always
be a fact that is not includable. In fact, no serious scientist would say, that it
is a hundert per cent sure that there is gravity. In the end it is "just" a model. |
Since gravity is - more or less (in the best model there is; however I have not yet taken a course on GR, so I'm not so firm there) - only curvature of space time, you could argue that it doesn't really "exist", anyway. But I know that's not what you wanted to say . Basically I agree - it's just a model.
| Zitat: | The last time I checked, physics had no model which included the flight of the
bumblebee. Newtons Axioms weren't enough to explain it, so it is not at all wrong
in a theoretical sense to say, that the flight of the bumblebee is impossible. And
still we can watch them doing it. |
Well actually, there are models as far as I know. But it's correct that the more simple ones won't do it. However - there are a lot of phenomena that we can't explain and that just don't work out in our model. For instance, there is no explanation for high temperature supra-conductivity, so it just should not exist (at least for the moment) from a theoretical point of view.
| Zitat: | But, regardless of Descartes' prejudice, it is the
sensory system to use measurement in the first place. Even though the qualitative is a domain of the psychic and physics earlier didn't observe such things as colors, because they weren't quantifiable then, the quantitative aspect comes into focus through human perception. The metric, the quantity - these are things coming out of the human psyche. Only who is metric, can invent a yard stick. I hope I cited Otto Heller the way one can recognize him. |
You are quite correct of course when you say that it is our sensory sytem that we use to measure in the first place. It is also our mind that sees the logic whereupon we build our understanding and this of course is a crucial point in philosophy. As a physicist, I usually take the following view on this problem:
- At first, reality around me exists or else I don't care - I am not some kind of brain linked to a big computer simulating my existence. If the world around me wouldn't exist it'd be futile to study it. But after all, since I wouldn't know it, it just doesn't matter.
- Second, my sensory system works rather well. That means that I will have some bias, there will be illusions and problems, but when I read words of a screen, well, that's basically what's really there on the screen. If I couldn't be more or less sure about that, once again, saying things about my environment would be futile
- Lastly and most importantly: As I admitted, the sensory system has many shortcomings and inaccuracies. But if I take some sort of measure, I can get a quantity, which I can read off without making mistakes. Of course, to invent that measure, I used my mind and that may be faulty, but it's the best way to overcome the other shortcomings after all. So I take the view that the machines measure correctly. They might not measure what I think they do, but the numbers I get out of them are unimpaired by the shortcomings of my sensory system.
I take this view, because it lets me work - as a psychologist, you of course have to doubt it (at least the second and third point and at least to some degree) .
However, as - if I understand you correctly - you have pointed out especially with your Heller citation (I must say I don't know him, but I assume you mean the psychologist, who sadly doesn't even have a wikipedia article) this requires that my mind works correctly. That my logics are true in a sense beyond me - because the machinery I build to overcome the shortcomings of myself are based on the workings of my mind.
This of course is the very deep question I also hinted about in my reply earlier, whether logics defines a universal truth or if MY logics doesn't, whether there is SOME logic that does.
So when quantifying systems, I need mathematics and I need to know, whether it is correct. But this of course is also the problem about proving whether my proofs are correct. I have to formalise mathematical proofs in order to somehow prove their logic. As I think I stated above, I also studied and study a fair amount of mathematics and the moment you come to "limits", thus to "infinity", things get messy. There are a lot of proofs that I would consider correct at first glance that aren't and that of course makes you wonder, whether, ultimately, you can be correct. But there again, in order to work in physics, I take on the view that my logic IS correct.
On a different note, there is this nice little twist in the above train of thoughts. The way I see it, if something is correct, it should not contradict itself. So ultimately, we should see whether our system is free of contradiction but as I am sure you have heard of this cannot be proven, if the systems are powerful enough for what we need (Gödel's famous incompleteness theorem).
So, sadly, ultimately Gödel told us that there are truths we cannot grasp.
| Zitat: | | If physics has no use for unquantifiable things, then perhaps because they have to be made quantifiable yet. |
Exactly. Although the biggest problem will be complexity of the phenomena.
Regards
MI
|
|
|
Eris
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.08.2011
Beiträge: 73
|
| Verfasst am: 17. Nov 2011 18:50 Titel: |
|
|
The way I reply might seem a little disconnected to your stream because I'm far from an organised setting as well.
I think I even had to mix your citations in order to make it seem coherent to my argumentation.
I hope it 's still comprehensible for you or others who read this.
First I would like to give a paraphrase of our posts until now:
The main difference between the two ways of looking at reality,
is that one takes believe in an objective world, existing independently
from human perception and "outside" consciousness
- while the other takes it for granted that truth is intersubjective and reality exists only "within" consciousness.
These points of view exist, even though none of them knows what consciousness really is or where it comes from.
For the one it's a more or less unimportant thing, while for the other it is the one and only thing and axle of its argumentation.
Having introduced these two beliefs, I want to give them both rights and wrongs, but am only able to discuss the matter from the point of view of the second belief. It will be then your mission to give the complementary truth to it.
I try then to do so by taking examples either of philosophies or of situations.
Some are rather unknown, as for example the citation of Heller,
who doesn't even have an article in the most famous online encyclopedia.
Still they can be an enrichment.
A maybe better known one who can sustain my argumentation at least to some extent is for one thing Vaihinger's Philosophy of "As-If", which says, that science needs fictionalism counsciously.
Why does science need fictionalism and also consciously? Doesn't this statement contradict science?
Vaihinger points out, that without a fictional model of a phenomenon (such as for example an atom, see also below)
we wouldn't be able to work with the phenomenon at all.
I guess this is what you mean with this conclusion:
| Zitat: |
I take this view, because it lets me work
|
And in my opinion you are right to look at the practical side of science more, because at the end of the metaphorical day it is
the result in which also non-physicists are interested. Who needs an atom if not for a bomb? (Sorry if I drift into the morbid sometimes,
but I can't always help it to be critical, and for me the cynicism is a good start, I hope you don't take it the personal way, since it
also results out of my lack of examples far from the popular ones)
| Zitat: |
- as a psychologist, you of course have to
doubt it (at least the second and third point and at least to some degree)
|
I apologise in case I've given the impression, that I would have to doubt some of a scientist's or your work:
As far as I'm concerend, a psychologist does not have to doubt that. As a matter of fact,
in psychology dominated paradigms of objectivity, such as the behavoristic paradigm
and at least parts of that paradigm continue to take influence to a certain extent.
Objectivity is a desireable state of art to many scientific spirits.
I don't have to agree but cannot fully ignore them either.
I cannot doubt that the successful outcome of physicist's
work actually do the job, even if it is because of fictionalism.
In the end it might only matter that it did work, not really how it worked, even
though I do take interest in the philosophy behind. For example: the calculation for a route to send a rocket to the moon is more complicated
and defective if the heliocentric model is the basis of the calculation. But if earth is taken as the centre of the universe, which we theoretically know
is totally wrong, the calculation is simpler and the rockets or whatever NASA's sending up there, actually find their targets.
Another, maybe better known fictionalism is our model of atoms. We know that atoms don't look like this, that is probably why there are many different ones,
but we need them to be able to work with them, just as you say.
To some degree it is about practicability and not at all about "truth", which
probably exists as much as "reality".
So you see, I don't doubt the practical aspect of physics.
But what I do doubt is, if there truly is an objective world outside our perception to begin with.
You of course don't and you shouldn't because as you say: it lets you work.
Also this following thought perhaps doesn't help you work, but nonetheless I'm inquiring what you do with a fact like this:
As a matter of fact we are surrounded by electromagnetic
vibration (and I hope this is the right term) and vibrations of all sorts that make
us see and hear, but we don't actually see or hear these electromagnetic waves. We see their reflections or what we mirror from them.
So where am I going with this? My conclusion of this matter of fact is, that humans construct the reality
and not only the social, emotional or psychic reality, but reality itself, the so called objective reality.
The wall I'm looking at, is not really there. But if it's not "really" there, why haven't I figured how I can
walk through it?
What is even more important is this question:
If walking through a wall is my only goal I have with walls, should it matter to
me if there is a structural analysis that explains how walls have to be built in order to carry a roof?
Or would the knowledge of statical laws just prevent me from walking through walls?
Take another example: I take interest in the fact, that if I was wearing prism glasses for a week or two, my brain turns around the picture and top becomes bottom again.
How can a person keep believing in a world outside
if it knows that the perception can fundamentaly change?
| Zitat: |
Since gravity is - (...) - only curvature of space time,
you could argue that it doesn't really "exist", anyway.
|
This in fact is one of my favourite arguments, but I thought it was too obvious.
But since you see where I'm getting at, I like to share some even more unordinary thoughts:
One could say, there is nothing beyond practicability - or, just as I do - be convinced that if the perception can be changed, also laws of
science can and not only can but should be changed.
The reason why I think this way is this:
(I know the following is going to sound weird, at the least but still)
If reality is a construction, why not practise the ability to construct reality consciously?
I take the example of being able to fly, because it has been a dream for some people throughout the time:
Instead of finding ways to make us fly by "only" build airplanes and such
machines which can make us fly (even if it is a spectacular thing to be able to fly with balloon, I'm not doubting that), we should believe in our ability to fly by ourselves and not give credit to biology and physics
which only know that is not possible without wings or fuel.
If perception is so crafty as I just pointed out, why should humans go on and believe in laws that have been made up in the first place,
laws that are built on a basis of descriptions of natural phenomena?
You guess right if you think that I'm turning the facts (which for me are beliefs) upside down: We think that theories describe the reality, but I say it is the exact other way around, that
the reality is built by the description.
In my last post I said, that no serious scientist would believe that there is such a thing as gravity, since it is just a model.
Now I say that there is no such thing as a serious and/or ordinary scientist anyway and that the unordinary thoughts are the ones able to innovate, not the ordinary ones.
This sets me to the conclusion that physics would actually concede me a point with what I've just stated, but it is you who's into the matter, which leads me to now end the post and curiously await your reply.
Thanks and regards,
Eris
|
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 25. Nov 2011 22:54 Titel: |
|
|
First, let me apologise that my answer comes late, but I didn’t want to just write up something in passing, but give it rather more thought. One other remark: Whenever I am speaking about physical/mathematical theories I write in a language that implies the entities exist and I shall do so just for convenience.
So now let me begin with what I think you were a few of the most important points of your post:
First you point out that, as far as we have discussed, there are two very different positions on the concept of “reality”. The first one would be that reality does not exist outside the human mind or else is basically a very subjective thing, the other being that reality does exist in the form of an objective reality.
| Zitat: | | You guess right if you think that I'm turning the facts (which for me are beliefs) upside down: We think that theories describe the reality, but I say it is the exact other way around, that the reality is built by the description. |
Actually, if I understand you correctly, this is not really too far apart from what I really like to think. My more or less axiomatic model of “reality” constructed above is a little too simplistic to catch the very complex picture I have come to form (and which – of course – is still work in progress) of what really is reality. Let me tell you a bit more about the different models I have encountered by starting with a joke fitting the occasion: An experimental physicist says that his models are an approximation to reality, a theoretical physicist says that reality is an approximation to his models and a mathematician – well, he doesn’t know about reality.
I think that this joke (although in the original it is an engineer rather than an experimental physicist) captures some parts of our discussion. The second (or even third) view point would be the one in your direction, while the first one would rather invoke the necessity of some outside reality as stated in my previous post, but it also incorporates Vaihinger’s point that we need a “fictional model of a phenomenon” in order to work with it. Now this is what the experimental physicist says: I have this model, which captures what I think is the essence of the phenomenon in a bunch of mathematical formulas, abstract pictures, etc. and now, let’s see what reality has to say. Of course, my model isn’t reality – an atom doesn’t look like an atom – but in the end, it matters only whether I can make more or less accurate predictions with it or as you put it:
| Zitat: | | And in my opinion you are right to look at the practical side of science more, because at the end of the metaphorical day it is the result in which also non-physicists are interested. |
This is the point of taking on this kind of position when talking about “reality”, because the concept of an outside reality makes things go well in my “inside reality”. One more thing: Physicists are well aware of the status of their “theories” or “models”. I mean, if we wanted to copy reality, why the hell should we learn Newtonian Mechanics, as it is basically wrong? There is only one reason (aside from the pedagogic reason that it is easier to learn easy models first before going to the unintuitive and mathematically complex stuff): Because the model works just fine, if one is very aware of the “scope” of the theories (which in Newtonian mechanics is “macroscopic” objects and velocities small compared to the speed of light). Since more accurate models comprising more elements such as modern quantum field theories are mathematically extremely complex, there are even areas of physics, which just derive simpler theories just for particular problems (the so called “effective quantum field theories”).
All of the experimental physicists I have encountered and talked to about this topic take on more or less the view of my previous post. Everybody “knows” that the model is just a description; it is and will never be a copy.
So are there any arguments supporting this view of an existing outside reality of what we get some yet biased picture? Well, of course, ultimately there aren’t - but there is something: If reality exists and I get a rather nice picture of it, then that’s fine with me, because I act as if it was there – if there is none – well it doesn’t matter because there is no one there so I can do as I please. Even if I only get some really twisted image of reality: I wouldn’t know, so all I’m concerned, the “real” reality just doesn’t concern me, so why should I care about ITS existence when all I know about is the reality of MY existence (which I think is the overall outside reality)?
In short: If I act like there was reality, I can’t really go wrong, because if there is – fine – if there isn’t – who cares?
But yet another question arises: How “sane”, do I have to be for my approach of physics to really work? How much of what I perceive has to exist objectively (even perhaps not entirely in the way I think it does, however very similar to it), such that the experiments I conduct actually tell me something about “reality”?
My opinion: Rather a lot. As I said, what we “know” about reality is really found out by experiments and in order for them to “tell us the truth” rather many things must be true. I have basically given an outline of some of the things in my previous post, however let me rephrase it:
- Objectivity needs different observers. But this implies that we can communicate to “others” out there and in such a way that we both understand similar things when talking to each other.
- Mathematics is really a concept that is very universal, thus by talking about mathematical quantities and invoking the first premise of the list, we can really talk to people about numbers and both understand the same thing.
- Our observations of the reality surrounding us are thus far correct that we can quantitatively compare entities. We can define a metric and “measure” and the results will be correct (if the experiment was exercised correctly).
There are a lot of “ifs” and “iffs” and probably I need even more, but to do all of that really rigourously it’d take a lot longer, but hopefully you do get an idea. However, even then, the reality each of us perceives might be fundamentally different from the reality of another which leads me back to what you said about “reality being basically formed in our head”.
In principle, I second that. A spiritual person probably sees a very different world than a science geek and our selective apperception of things around us creates different worlds in each of us. This is – in my opinion – also the basic problem in communication: We just assume that the other sees our picture of the world, but they just don’t. This is also why physicists agree on measuring by simple scales, because, ultimately, this is something that we have seen we can easier agree upon. However, I think that you were going a lot further by saying that we “create” the world in our head than just differences in perception, structure of the world, etc; that the world around us (if it exists) may even be VERY different from what we think we see - whatever “very” means:
| Zitat: | I take the example of being able to fly, because it has been a dream for some people throughout the time:
Instead of finding ways to make us fly by "only" build airplanes and such machines which can make us fly (even if it is a spectacular thing to be able to fly with balloon, I'm not doubting that), we should believe in our ability to fly by ourselves and not give credit to biology and physics which only know that is not possible without wings or fuel. |
I recently talked about that to somebody else and the question I am asking is: Can you do that? I at least find it terribly hard outside of sleep. And whatever I see, doesn’t tell me that anybody can really imagine much. There are things I can really imagine myself do, but I find my mind pretty limited there. Now I look around (whatever that is ) and I see a very unimaginative world. Even when reading fantasy literature or watching fantasy movies, it can be seen that the authors’ ideas are very similar to the world I see around me. Most of the times, the trees on “different worlds” work pretty much the same way, the people and animals resemble the ones we see here (they are nothing but a sometimes peculiar arrangement of features I can see in other animals), e.g. in that direction the recent movie Avatar is one of the most unimaginative movies I have ever seen (although – in defense of the writers – it was intended to look pretty much like earth). It seems to me that my world at least has a very limited amount of ideas which I can play with.
So naturally, the question arises about the origin of this bound on the amount of truly different ideas. Why is it there? The only reasonable answer (if you have a better, let me know) despite the simple fact that I myself am pretty limited, which could already explain everything, is that there really is some “reality” which just happens to have a limited set of ideas. My picture may be blurred, but something’s “there”. But in the end, I just don’t know
And finally:
| Zitat: | | (Sorry if I drift into the morbid sometimes, but I can't always help it to be critical, and for me the cynicism is a good start, I hope you don't take it the personal way, since it also results out of my lack of examples far from the popular ones) |
No offence taken whatsoever. I for one very much enjoy cynicism (one of my all time favourite books is “Candide” by Voltaire, which is terribly cynic in many ways). In fact, I recently came across a very interesting quote by one of the great mathematicians of the century:
| Zitat: | All mathematics is divided into three parts: cryptography (paid for by CIA, KGB and the like), hydrodynamics (supported by manufacturers of atomic submarines) and celestial mechanics (financed by military and other institutions dealing with missiles, such as NASA).
Cryptography has generated number theory, algebraic geometry over finite fields, algebra, combinatorics and computers.
Hydrodynamics procreated complex analysis, partial derivative equations, Lie groups and algebra theory, cohomology theory and scientific computing.
Celestial mechanics is the origin of dynamical systems, linear algebra, topology, variational calculus and symplectic geometry.
The existence of mysterious relations between all this different domains is the most striking and delightful feature of mathematics (having no rational explanation).
(Vladimir Igorevitch Arnold) |
He got some points there, although of course this is an exaggeration.
In any case, I hope to have addressed here in some coherent manner at least some of the points you talked about.
Best regards
MI
|
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 04. Dez 2011 11:36 Titel: |
|
|
Hey MI,
what's up? What are you doing? How is your study going?
You are at the LMU, right? I read that a famous astrophysics professor, who I like a lot, teaches at this university. His name is Prof. Dr. Lesch. I am sure, you know him. Have you ever seen him or have you ever sit in one of his lessons?
Regards 
|
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 05. Dez 2011 21:38 Titel: |
|
|
I've got lots to do and little time to do it.
Of course, I know about Harald Lesch, but he doesn't give many lectures and astrophysics is not my main area of interest. Furthermore, I have just gone to LMU this autumn, thus I've not had much time.
Regards
MI
|
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 05. Dez 2011 23:08 Titel: |
|
|
Hey MI,
okay I understand. Could you tell me why did you choose Physics for Studying?
Regards
|
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 11. Dez 2011 21:15 Titel: |
|
|
I originally chose physics because actually, I couldn't really decide what to study. My ultimate goal is to understand what's going on around me - but nearly every discipline helps you to do that.
However, since I seek understanding, I concluded that it would be best to start with the basics - and that is physics (mathematics does not, ultimately, tell me anything about the world - or at least not without physics). I could have also chosen something like philosophy, but ultimately, I am more inclined to the natural sciences because they are easier in the sense that they today heavily rely on mathematics, which is easy in the sense that there is more or less only one correct answer for a sufficiently well posed problem.
Also, when I was still younger, I didn't like social sciences (except for history, which to some degree is not a typical social science) that much, thus to go there wasn't really an option.
However, in recent years I have done more and more mathematics and might end up a mathematical physicist. It's not that I don't like experimental physics - it ultimately tells me whether my theories are correct and thus it is extremely valuable - but I don't want to do it myself the whole day because I find that I understand best what is going on by looking at the mathematics.
But since I, ultimately, seek to know what makes the world go round, I am more or less interested in anything going on anywhere.
If I might ask you the same question: What do you like to do? You ask me about physics, why do you like it?
Regards
MI
|
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 12. Dez 2011 07:20 Titel: |
|
|
Hi MI,
thanks for the answer. I like it because it has impressead me a lot. Physics is the most interesting science because it tells you why the world so is, how it is. And that's for me really interessting. Furthermore I read a lot about Albert Einstein and I am interested in the space and questions like ''How were we created''. Moreover I think Physics is automatically interesting, you don't need to do anything and you are interested, because it belongs to all of us.
Those are ther reasons why I am interested in Physics, but I regret that my mathematical skills are not good enough for studying Physics in the future.
Maybe I can find a different subject, which has at least a little bit Physics and Maths. Do you know one?
Greetings (And I notice that my English is getting better 
|
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 18. Dez 2011 01:17 Titel: |
|
|
| Pablo hat Folgendes geschrieben: |
thanks for the answer. I like it because it has impressed me a lot. Physics is the most interesting science because it tells you why the world is, how it is. And that's really interesting for me. Furthermore I read a lot about Albert Einstein and I am interested in the space and questions like ''How were we created''. I'd omit the "the" before space, but that might be a personal liking. Moreover I think physics is automatically interesting, you don't need to do anything and you are interested, because it belongs to all of us.
|
Yes, that's what I meant. Physics is the most fundamental natural science there is, making it the basis for any other. And that's why I like to do it.
| Zitat: | | Those are the reasons why I am interested in Physics, but I regret that my mathematical skills are not good enough for studying Physics in the future. |
As I told you, physics exists on different planes: There is one, which is only theoretic and hence very mathematical, then there is one that is phenomenological and thus tries to bridge a gap between pure mathematics and experiments and then there is an experimental side to it, where the theories are tested. And then there are studies like "technical physicists", which focus even more on the practical/experimental aspect and require even less mathematics.
All of them (except perhaps the latter, which I know nothing about) require a fair amount of mathematics and there are not many subjects where you need more mathematics than in physics, but the mathematics needed varies. In experimental physics, you might find that most of the maths is more or less calculations, which is very different to the very formal and mathematically clear stuff done in mathematical physics. You might be good at getting values out of a theory, but not good at other parts of mathematics.
E.g. if you can master the mathematics at school, you will probably be able to do a lot of the mathematics required in experimental physics, if you understand the physics, so with hard work, you'll probably be able to do experimental physics, but school just doesn't prepare you for the kind of mathematics that you encounter in theoretical physics - there are some hints that you might be good/bad at it (understanding the underlying concepts, etc.), but it doesn't really prepare you at all.
| Zitat: | | Maybe I can find a different subject, which has at least a little bit Physics and Maths. Do you know one? |
As I said, there are some ranges of technical physicists, etc. Then of course, engineering has both physics and maths in it (and there, you'll find many people struggling with the maths) and engineering is a very useful subject as well.
| Zitat: | | Greetings (And I notice that my English is getting better |
Yes, now after having read your texts for some months, I'd agree that you are getting more fluid and especially your sentence structure is getting more natural.
Regards
MI
|
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 18. Dez 2011 13:54 Titel: |
|
|
Hey MI,
thank you man
Did you just learn English in school oder did you do some extra courses? Or things like that? Because your English is quite good and I can't believe that somebody with ''just'' Ab-English speaks in this way.
Tell me your secrets to learn English
Peace
|
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 18. Dez 2011 20:51 Titel: |
|
|
Just school and my four months stay in England nearly ten years ago and then of course I never stopped reading English books, etc.
But you see that you have made progress since you have come here. I mean, there's still lots to learn and I am sure you are aware of that (although there's also lots to learn for me), but there is progress. And when you keep up with you work, in one or two years time you'll speak reasonbly good English. And at one stage, you'll just see that you just need more practice and more vocabulary - and that comes with experience. I doubt there is "a secret" behind it.
Regards
MI
|
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 19. Dez 2011 15:43 Titel: |
|
|
Thank you for the trust. I also think that my English will get better if I keep learning.
What are your plans for next year? Are you visiting some foreign countries? I am playing with the thought to go to Thailand. It is a big dream of mine to see all the small islands there and see such a fabulous beach. I have dreamt of it since I am a child.
Have you ever been there?
Peace
|
|
|
Eris
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.08.2011
Beiträge: 73
|
| Verfasst am: 22. Dez 2011 00:38 Titel: |
|
|
I'm so sorry I haven't replied yet. Studies have kept me terribly busy (and probably always will).
In case it's of interest I will try to post soon.
Until then I wish a merry christmas and a happy new year 2012.
|
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 22. Dez 2011 19:30 Titel: |
|
|
@Eris
| Eris hat Folgendes geschrieben: | I'm so sorry I haven't replied yet. Studies have kept me terribly busy (and probably always will).
In case it's of interest I will try to post soon.
Until then I wish a merry christmas and a happy new year 2012. |
Merry christmas and a happy new year to you, too. I can totally understand your being busy. I myself do not find the time to come here very often, because of all the work. Of course, I'd like to continue the discussion - but take your time!
@Pablo
| Zitat: | | What are your plans for next year? Are you visiting some foreign countries? I am playing with the thought to go to Thailand. It is a big dream of mine to see all the small islands there and see such a fabulous beach. I have dreamt of it since I am a child. |
No, I've never been to Thailand, although it is probably a very interesting country. Maybe some day. I do not have any plans for next year despite studying - at the moment I wouldn't even find the time to make plans, although I plan to go to some summer school ("planning" as in "keeping in mind that I want to plan this once the semester is over").
Regards
MI
|
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 10. Jan 2012 23:17 Titel: |
|
|
Jo MI,
What dou you mean with summer-school? Is that a university or just anything for your language? Do you like Munich? How is it there?
Greetings
|
|
|
Eris
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.08.2011
Beiträge: 73
|
| Verfasst am: 08. Feb 2012 22:03 Titel: |
|
|
I haven't shown for such a long time, that I not only forgot my own password, I also had to read into the subject we were discussing.
This of course makes me frenetically sorry!
By reading the discussion, I found myself incapable of re-entering the flow and now I must helplessly ask myself out of it!
If you don't mind, would you just explain what you mean when you said, that you seek enlightenment?
I know that by this I'm just throwing the ball back at you without being fertile, but by cross reading our arguments, that one was the most fulfilling!
As far as I'm concerned, studying fulfilles us, but how do you actually find enlightenment, which for me is a big word, which I associate with religion of the eastern part of the world, if you know what I mean: buddhism and such... et cetera.
Well, for now I have to depart again, I might find some time next year... joking!!!
My exams are in march and after that I plan to hang around here a lot, so take care!
|
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 08. Feb 2012 22:57 Titel: |
|
|
March is completely fine. I'm not here at the moment either - for the same reasons.
Right now I'm thinking more about QED Lagrangian and Feynman rules or embeddings of smooth manifolds and parallel transport via Levi-Civita-connections instead of psychology , so let's pick up in March.
Greetings
MI
|
|
|
Eris
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.08.2011
Beiträge: 73
|
| Verfasst am: 08. Feb 2012 23:06 Titel: |
|
|
Alright, very fine! Here the same actually: what correlates more with what an less with else and why in what questionnaire and what did Rogers say else than Cattell and who was born before the other and why is the validity more reliable than the objectivity!
So let's do!
Greets
Eris
|
|
|
Eris
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.08.2011
Beiträge: 73
|
| Verfasst am: 11. Apr 2012 21:56 Titel: |
|
|
In case you ever wondered, what interdisciplinary really means... check this:
| Beschreibung: |
|
| Dateigröße: |
26.61 KB |
| Angeschaut: |
13916 mal |
|
|
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 12. Apr 2012 02:11 Titel: |
|
|
Yeah, there's nothing than good old xkcd comics. I didn't remember this one though, thanks for reminding me!
I think the biggest problem about interdisciplinarity is that people just have very different sets of thinking and don't bother to exchange definitions first, thus resulting in situations were everybody thinks they understand the problem at hand yet everybody understands it differently.
The great Richard Feynman in his autobiography "Surely you are joking Mr Feynman" elaborates on this when saying why he refused at one point to attend further interdisciplinary conferences in the area of human sciences.
Greetings
MI
|
|
|
manuell
Anmeldungsdatum: 21.01.2013
Beiträge: 9
|
| Verfasst am: 21. Jan 2013 23:31 Titel: |
|
|
Totale Dauermüdigkeit, deshalb unkonzentriert und unmotivert.
Morgens ist mir flau, aber nicht richtig übel. Übergeben musste ich mich zum Glück noch nicht.
Heute Nacht hatte ich einen kurzen, krampfartigen Schmerz im UL. Sind das die Mutterbänder, oder wie das heißt?
Außerdem ich hab immer Durst, was ich gar nicht von mir kenne. Und weil ich dauernd trinke, renn ich alle paar Minuten aufs WC. Voll lästig!
|
|
|
|
|
Registrieren
Login
FAQ
Suchen
