Yet another response to controinfo

This blog is once again a response to Controinfo. I have to say I was quite puzzled in reading his last response for a number of different reasons: 1) He literally ignored some of the answers I've already given 2) I'm not sure he understood what a number of my positions actually are 3) The entire blog was immersed with drama that has nothing to do with me and should not have been placed in these exhchanges. In regards to the last statement I will address it this way and not any further. Controinfo it is I who is writing my own blog and noone else. No attacks on you are made by anybody else. I'm not being influenced by anyone else you might be thinking of. The most influence that I'm being exposed to is in regards (and only in regards) to what it is particular scientific theories say and how science works. I certantly am not a schizophrenic as you obviously know but more importantly there is no "older devil" involved in these conversations. I'm tired of repeating the same things over and over again and if you don't believe me I can't help you. I'm confused as to why you even consider mine a personal attack. I don't see anything I said as being mean spirited. Maybe I could be wrong about my postions and maybe I'm ignorant about a lot of things but I don't see myself as arrogant. I have a lot of reasons to believe I'm not incorrect about a lot of the things I've been stating so far (particularly in regards to religion as that is what I'm most knowledgeable about). I'm well aware that you are an intelligent individual and have a lot to say about philosophy. You've certantly read a lot more than I have and probably ever will. This does not mean, however, that everything you say is right or that you even have any understanding of how science actually works and what speficic theories actually say. You can have read a lot for many years and still not have been able grasp certain basic scientifc concepts. Keep in mind that I'm not saying you don't (Well I am in regards to quantum physics I am but you've admitted this yourself and we've agreed that there needs to be an explanation in a language we can all understand) I'm just saying you should take your own advice and be less arrogant in the way you approach things sometimes. This is true especially when you are stepping out of your own field and are making claims about another. I've seen people (as I'm sure you have too during the course of your life) who have read just as much as you but understood very little. Maybe the same indivduals understood a lot but about a number of topics but felt short in others even when they were sure they were experts. Keep in mind that in relation to science I'm not talking about just mathematical equations. I'm talking about the scientific process itself. It seems to me that many people either misunderstand the claims made by philosophy of science or those claims may be inadequate to begin with. I've said it before and I'll say it one last time, there is no reason to take any of this personally. I understand the situation you're in but my humble advice is that you need to figure out a way not to be so insecure with yourself and be able to be challenged in conversations without having it go on a personal level (when it doesn't in anyway have to) or throwing a fit. Now I will deal with the points made in your response. A lot of the philosophical points you were making I already said apply and arise only when you misinterpret what it is quantum theory is actually saying. I'll repeat the point I made which you completely ignored: The fact that there is no absolute way of proving that what we both mean by blue is the same thing is easily surpassible by a simple probability analysis. As I already stated before while there may be particular linguistical problems within language, the fact we are all able to communicate for the most part effectively (as well as the obvious fact that independent of these linguistical problems science works just as well) it seems to me you are arriving at the wrong conclusions. Now to deal with the example of the alien. There is a serious flaw in your whole scenario. The point I've been trying to make you understand is that the physical world exists independent from language. Obviously we need language in order to disect it and separate certain things from other ones. At the same time I don't think this is true to the extent you're claiming it is. Instinctively, I don't see any reason why an individual couldn't be aware of the difference between a moving car and the ground. He may not have words to really understand what those things are but using his senses (in this particular case his sight and his hearing) he would be in some way aware of a phenomenon going on. I've heard you also say a number of times that a baby only begins separating himself from the rest of the world when he begins to use language. Again, while I agree this is true to an extent I don't see why it is to the extreme you're claiming. A child may not be able to distinguish an object from another (altough I'm not even sure of that; it seems to me like a young child depending on how developed his senses are would instinctively perceive things like space or the difference between a moving car and a tree..even if he thinks they're all aspects of the same thing, he is aware of a difference between the two before he is able to name it) Another example of this is a child crying for his milk. Wether or not he is able to differ his milk bottle from his toy, he knows that when he's hungry the bottle feels different than the toy. He realizes he can't drink from the toy. So without being able to name any of those things and maybe not being able to separate them as different entities he instictively would feel differences between them. Another example...a young child touches a water bottle..and then a shoe on the ground. Once again the same reasoning can be applied..he has no language to name those objects..again he may for lack of a better word believe that they are two aspects (or two of millions of aspect of the same thing) but he is still aware of differences between the two "aspects" based on his senses. Anyway returning to what I was saying earlier, none of this is saying that the reality that exists out there shifts depending on brain chemistry, extra terrestrials, or any other example you may come up with. There is no doubt that there are certain creations that result from language are are purely cultural and do not exist out there. This does not mean however that our experience of reality is completely bound by language. I'll make an easy example. Imagine someone who for some unknown reason has not developed a language of his own. Now imagine that this individual gets shot in the arm by a gun shot. Regardless of his obvious impairment, he will feel pain. Regardless of his incapacity to be able to even have concepts such of what a bullet is or what a gun is for, all of the physical laws and events that take place when the gun is fired still exist. The mechanisms don't change regardless. If you drop a ball from a building a physical event will occur. It doesn't matter what your language is or if you're an alien from another planet. The same even will occur. Another way of looking at it based on what you've been saying is this. We are at a baseball stadium. I am watching the game from a certain place while you are on the opposite side of the field. Our particular point of reference may change but this has no effect on the stadium itself. It also does not mean that we cant arrive at a similar mental and contruction of the stadium just because we start out at different reference points. A related issue is the idea that math does not exist out there. While it's true that math is in itself a kind of language, the world seems to me mathematical by nature. Mathemathics is a system that quantifies "things" and since the world is made up of "things" they are quantifiable..I'm not sure what is difficult to understand about that. Nothing about what I've said so far shows a religious attitude towards science in any way. I really don't understand where it is you're getting that from. I've never said that any theory is "absolutely true" or that there aren't any linguistical problems within science ever of any kind. The question is how much of reality is science and language capturing? I'm sorry to say but it's statements like these that lead me to think that when it comes to the scientific and relgious mindset you don't understand what it is you're talking about...Sure there are scientists out there who have a religious approaches to science but they're not using a scientific mindset when they do so and I'm certanly not one of them if you understand anything of what I'm saying. Maybe you've just misunderstood my positions for some reason...even though I'm trying to be as clear as I possibly can. Maybe I've failed in that regard. Now on the issue of creativity: 1) You completely ignored my response which showed why "creativity" was not a factor in the context you were putting it in. I'll repeat what was already said in my previous blog: "The idea that Einstein exercised "creativity" in the sense of a painter with an empty canvas is another typically ridiculous fallacy. The theory of special relativity is simply what results once you understand the implications of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism which speaks to the absence of preferred reference frames. This technical statement is meant to express the idea that Einstein was not being creative. He was following the inevitable line of reasoning he was forced to by one theory that was already well supported experimentally (Maxwell's). With special relativity in place, general relativity is what results from applying the equivalence principle to accelerated frames. This other technical statement also expresses the notion that very specific theoretical requirements needed to be met for a logically coherent theory to emerge. The equivalence principle is a precise prescription for how general relativity must be, given the equivalence of gravity and acceleration. Again, the kind of thinking going on here was not of the form "uhm...let's make a nice theory of the universe in a way that we like" - type scenario." I also stated several times already that even if we were to accept your argument of creativity there is a framework within science that goes beyond general speculation and allows you to go beyond just an idea. A theory may at one point start as a general idea (I'm not saying this is even the case I'm just talking hypothetically if I was even to accept your claim) but the scientific framework allows it to become something very different therefore it is not comparable to any sort of general speculation that people may do. You also midunderstood my use of the word productivity. All I was simply stating was the very simple definition of the word productivity...the quality of being productive. I doubt you would try to argue that science isn't productive as all our technology and medicine and knoweldge about how the universe works comes from science. Lastly on the topic of creativity: the fact that a theory needs to understand the previous theory has nothing to do with creativity whats so ever. I don't know where you are making the connection between that and creativity. You should also remember that within art and music there have been movements that were not borrowing from the previous ones. There have been movements which were completely innovative. Some may have been cultural responses to the previous but not necessarily so. They still could have been completely original on their own. It seems to me like you keep ignoring responses I've already given or youre making connections where they don't apply. Now my point about the history channel was also one I didn't find complicated. It is in my opinion arrogant to talk with such absolute certainty about what Einstein's mindset was, just because of a show you watched on the history channel. I'm not saying the history channel was lying about what it said in any way. I'm only saying that in my opinion it seems illegitimate to think the story of the train and the clock ( for example) gives you as much insight as you're claiming it does to exactly what Einstein's mindset was or wasn't. I don't understand what "sick attitude" towards you that statement is suggesting. Once again you are letting a bizarre insecurity and things that have nothing to do with me cloud your reasoning and judgement in this discussion. Finally I don't know where it is that you're getting your ideas from regarding my beliefs. I may have a tendency towards reductionism but I wouldn't say I'm a reductionist in every sense of the word. Nothing I've said in my blog or our discussions is suggesting that but once again you make the painful mistake of making unfair comparions. There is a world of difference in believing that the sciences might one day be reducible to one (This doesn't mean that everything will be explained just that what can be explained MIGHT) and a religious belief. Sure if anyone was to say they KNEW it will be so or they KNOW scientific theories are ABSOLUTELY TRUE in every sense of the word I would agree with you but those aren't my positions in any shape or form. No doubt there are still things to be discovered that will eventually show how legitimate that position is but it's not even a position I hold in the way you're accusing me of so it is completely irrelevant to the conversation. Hopefully I have cleared up any misconceptions. I'm hoping to be able to get back to topics I wanted to discuss on here in the near future.