David Eagleman on Possibilianism

[LikesToTrip]

I stumbledupon this and thought it was interesting. He talks about his new philosophy of possibilianism. He explains how we need to be open minded, but only to a degree. I really liked the part where he was questioning Dark Matter. I've always been skeptical about dark matter.

[spockman]

This doesn't sound too different then just rephrasing some of the steps of the scientific method. However, I didn't watch the video but jest read a summary. I could have missed some stuff.

[Alric]

It wasn't any thing ground breaking, but it was entertaining to watch I think. I would agree with him on most of that.

[LikesToTrip]

It wasn't any thing ground breaking, but it was entertaining to watch I think. I would agree with him on most of that. No, not at all. It was pretty uneventful, but it's nice to hear a talk from someone with a level head. I hate when I hear from Michio Kaku or any other quantum physisict describe how much we know about something we know nothing about. String theory, dark matter, and 11 Dimensions make me think quantum physicists have watched way too much Star Trek. There's no solid qualitative evidence for any of these claims yet they hold on to their beliefs based on, some longing to be right and have the answers, faith.

[Xei]

You don't really understand those terms. 'Dark energy' is just slang for 'whatever the fuck is making the universe expand faster'. It's not a hypothesis, it's an observation. Same with dark matter. Nobody knows yet if it actually is some kind of abundant particle that only acts gravitationally, or if there are some modifications that need to be made to the laws of physics. The term is just a placeholder for 'this observed but currently unexplained effect'.

[LikesToTrip]

Heh, I was hoping you'd post Xei. And you gave the exact response I was expecting out of you xD. The way I understand it is this. Newtonian physics explains how objects with mass should interact in the presence of one another. These fundamental laws work very well at explaining how things interact on Earth. However, when we apply these same equations to entire galaxies they fail to accurately describe the system. However, they don't abandoning the theory that fails to accurately describe the system; instead they invent a hidden variable. If they factor in invisible particles that can't be observed, but still manage to have mass equivalent to that of particles we can observe than the system suddenly balances out. Rather than reexamining the situation and understanding exactly why the equations don't work they've invented something irrational to satisfy their quest for understanding; in actuality they have absolutely no idea.

[stormcrow]

@LikesToTrip- Why abandon a theory when it is consistent? Newtonian physics wasn't throw out the window with the discovery of general and special relativity. The universe still operates by basic laws that Newton discovered only his theories on the speed of light was replaced by special relativity and his theories on gravity were replaced by general relativity. There is no need to throw out his theories because they were unable to explain certain things when the bulk of his laws still stand and are consistent. Creating "variables" IS reexamining the situation, like Xei said 'Dark energy' is just slang for 'whatever the fuck is making the universe expand faster' which is exactly right because we have observed it we just don't know what it is, so "Dark energy" is just a name we are attaching to this phenomena. You are correct that string theory and M-theory (which is basically a different version of string theory) are theoretical and don't have conclusively evidence suggesting their validity. However physicists are careful to make a distinction between speculation and fact. You are not going to find a single physicist that is saying that string theory is a fact. String theory is an attempt to reconcile quantum physics and relativity and it looks promising but like I said it is still not well respected because it hasn't produced testable experimental results. Think of it this way, the universe is one of those 1000 piece puzzles. We are just trying to fit different pieces in the blank spaces to see if we can come out with at least a somewhat coherent picture. There is nothing wrong with this, we are just testing the waters. Anyway regarding the video I thought it was a bit redundant. What is the usefulness of creating a new word to convey uncertainty? How is this going to lead mankind to a better understanding of the universe and himself? We already know that uncertainty is the only tenable position on many issues. I agree with Alric it is nothing groundbreaking but still entertaining to watch. Thanks for sharing.

[Xei]

Heh, I was hoping you'd post Xei. And you gave the exact response I was expecting out of you xD. The way I understand it is this. Newtonian physics explains how objects with mass should interact in the presence of one another. These fundamental laws work very well at explaining how things interact on Earth. However, when we apply these same equations to entire galaxies they fail to accurately describe the system. However, they don't abandoning the theory that fails to accurately describe the system; instead they invent a hidden variable. If they factor in invisible particles that can't be observed, but still manage to have mass equivalent to that of particles we can observe than the system suddenly balances out. Rather than reexamining the situation and understanding exactly why the equations don't work they've invented something irrational to satisfy their quest for understanding; in actuality they have absolutely no idea. I think you should read my post a lil' closer, I did actually explain this exact misunderstanding: "Nobody knows yet if it actually is some kind of abundant particle that only acts gravitationally, or if there are some modifications that need to be made to the laws of physics. The term is just a placeholder for 'this observed but currently unexplained effect'." Dark matter isn't a hypothesis that the effect is actually caused by matter.