The purple snipe of the magical kingdom

From: "nu-monet v4.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: like.excess@sex.org
Date: Sun, Feb 17, 2002

(Brilliant physicists in need of some basic classes in
logic. What they are doing is the following:

They want to prove the existence of (an)other dimension(s).
How do they know that there is (an)other dimension(s)?
Easy. That is where the gravitons are!
But we have never found a graviton!
Oh, that's because they are in (an)other dimension(s)!

I could use the same logic looking for a magical kingdom:
I know that there is a magical kingdom, because that is
where all the purple snipe live.
But you've never seen a purple snipe! Oh, that's because
they all live in the magical kingdom!)

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/aaft-iso020602.php

In search of extra dimensions: Hang on--
a new reality may be around the corner...

--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"

--Kino Beman, brand name
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: IMBJR <imbjr@imbjr.com>

On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 16:43:16 GMT, "nu-monet v4.0"
<nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:

>In search of extra dimensions: Hang on--
>a new reality may be around the corner...

I was recently watching the telly and was told that our universe came
about thru colliding membranes in the 11th dimension. Sounds like a
B-movie plot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Sir Dr. Rev. Siegfried The Red" <spammersdiesiegfried1@mediaone.net>

One thing I learned about Science, especially Weird Science, is that
scientists don't always use that Scientific Method bullshit we were taught
in elementary school. Sometimes taking shortcuts really does produce the
best results, especially when your funding is limited. The one thing about
True Science is that it's all subject to change at any time when a better
idea comes along. So if postulating the idea of other dimensions explains a
lot of shit, even though we didn't logically prove it, we'll stick with that
idea until an idea comes along that explains things even better.

Theories are just MODELS that are useful to us and we keep them until
someone creates a model that works better. How they built the model is not
always as important as whether the model works or not.

Of course, if your model is LOGICAL, that's even better. Illogical models
don't last very long when your peers start poking at the cracks. However,
if your model is ILLOGICAL, but explains things in a way that we find useful
in our TECHNOLOGICAL pursuits, then pragmatism kicks you in the ass and
tells you that you might as well go with it.

That's what I like about the Church - it's ALL TRUE, because it works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org>

On 2/17/02 10:43 AM, in article 3C6FDD9F.13A5@succeeds.com, "nu-monet v4.0"
<nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:

> I know that there is a magical kingdom, because that is
> where all the purple snipe live.
> But you've never seen a purple snipe! Oh, that's because
> they all live in the magical kingdom!)

If there is some observable effect that purple snipe were alleged to cause,
your argument would be dead on. However, unless your idea of gravity is way,
way out there, purple snipe don't cause it.

One explanation for what causes the phenomenon we call "gravity" is a
carrier particle known as the graviton.

One problem with this explanation of the phenomenon is that gravitons are
not observable by any known experimental method.

One possible explanation for this problem with this explanation of the
phenomenon is that gravitons move through a dimension which is not directly
observable to human beings.

So you see that what you are considering a basic logic error is in fact a
possible explanation for a problem with an explanation of a phenomenon.

See?

St. Marc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "nu-monet v4.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>

St. Marc the Perpetually Amused wrote:
> If there is some observable effect that purple snipe
> were alleged to cause, your argument would be dead on.
> However, unless your idea of gravity is way, way out
> there, purple snipe don't cause it.
>
> One explanation for what causes the phenomenon we
> call "gravity" is a carrier particle known as the
> graviton.

Ahem. One explanation for the phenomenon we call
"Jesus' eternal grace" is his life as a man in the
world.

> One problem with this explanation of the phenomenon
> is that gravitons are not observable by any known
> experimental method.

One problem with this explanation of the phenomenon
is that there is no one alive who actually saw Jesus.

> One possible explanation for this problem with this
> explanation of the phenomenon is that gravitons move
> through a dimension which is not directly observable
> to human beings.

One possible explanation is that Jesus lives on a
different plane of existence than our own which is not
directly observable to human beings.

> So you see that what you are considering a basic logic
> error is in fact a possible explanation for a problem
> with an explanation of a phenomenon.

Uh-huh.

My argument is that they are so *desperate* to prove the
existence of gravitons, of *any* description, that they
are wanting to see gravitons under their beds. Every new
advance will try to demonstrate gravitons as a side-effect.
This is ridiculous.

And what if they discover another dimension, but still
*don't* find their blessed gravitons!

There is a story of a German algebra instructor who went
to Russia before the revolution, to teach a bunch of
students, who all they wanted to do was discuss atheism
and why god did not exist. He became so frustrated that
he finally wrote a quadratic equation on the blackboard
and said, "This equation proves that god exists!"

Then he demanded that they prove the equation wrong.
Their efforts more than made up for lost time in teaching.
And they never did prove that "god doesn't exist" using
the quadratic equation.

Now take the similar attitude that there *is* no graviton,
that gravity is just a function of space/time. All of
a sudden there is no *need* to prove gravitons.

--
"Islam is a religion in which God requires
you to send your son to die for him.
Christianity is a faith in which God sends
his son to die for you."
--Attorney General John Ashcroft
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mturyn@world.std.com

Gravitons as modelled _would_ exist here, but this particular
mathematical description of themuses the assumption of extra
dimensions in order to work. This is exactly the same as saying that
a snipe has a particular location (verifiable by the effects of its
existence, e.g. a bunch of photons hitting your eye after being
reflected from it), but that you need to know that it's purple
(another "dimension" or measurement) in order to understand it well.

Don't assume that just because some people are brilliant,
highly-trained professionals, that they're basically stupid or are
just playing word-games---that's Con-implanted resentment designed to
make you ignore them when they've got something interesting to say.
Many scientists are extremely slackful....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu>

"nu-monet v4.0" wrote:
> Now take the similar attitude that there *is* no graviton,
> that gravity is just a function of space/time. All of
> a sudden there is no *need* to prove gravitons.

Yeah, shame about the math not working out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The purple snipe of the magical kingdom
From: joecosby@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sun, Feb 17, 2002 9:51 PM
Message-ID: <3c706aae.83814477@News.CIS.DFN.DE>

"St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org> hunched
over a computer, typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused"
<disciple@templeoferis.org> laughed madly, then wrote:

>One explanation for what causes the phenomenon we call "gravity" is a
>carrier particle known as the graviton.

"Carrier particles" are a bugaboo.

'What's a graviton?'
'It carries gravity'
'So what's gravity?'
'It's what's carried by gravitons'

Why exactly is science so fixated on 'particles' in the first place?
The phenomena they're observing make the idea of a discrete particle
really problematic and I think we've carried this idea of 'fundamental
bits of reality/matter' over from basically outmoded scientific basic
concepts.

For Newton or Democritus or whoever having some concept of a 'most
basic part of reality' was undoubtedly necessary as a jumping-off
point and a referant and it has proved useful, but the idea of a 'most
fundamental particle' has serious logic problems and I think science
is too fixated on the concept of 'basic SOLID building blocks' to be
able to advance any further.

What shape would the most basic particle be?

Obviously there is no answer, and that would be well-understood
already by anybody searching for 'gravitons'. But why then are we
using the conceptual tool of a 'particle' at all?

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com

"The revolution will not be televised"
- Gil Scott Heron

Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "nu-monet v4.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>

Joe Cosby wrote:
>
> Why exactly is science so fixated on 'particles'
> in the first place?...

Many years ago, I got the answer right from the
dumbshit's mouth. It seems the ANCIENT GREEKS
believed in the concept of "aether", a substance
that permeated everything and through which
objects flew, and which sustained them in flight.

Apparently, some of the more idiotic scientists
of Einstein's youth *still* held onto the "aether"
notion, even after he had "proved" that "aether"
DID NOT AND COULD NOT EXIST. FINITO. NO MORE
QUESTIONS. YOU WILL CEASE BELIEVING IN "AETHER"
HENCEFORTH OR ELSE!!!

Basically, what this meant was that Einstein and
his peers developed a serious complex on the
subject, and got apoplectic if any of their
students suggested anything even *remotely*
similar to "aether." "AETHER" DOES NOT AND CANNOT
EXIST AND YOU FAIL THIS COURSE IF YOU SUGGEST IT
MIGHT.

Therefore, there are ONLY three things permitted
in their universe: particles, waves and nothing.

The trouble is, is that it isn't so black and
white. Particles and waves are basically two
forms of the same thing, now called "energy
packets." And as much as they keep insisting
that there is NOTHING in all of that NOTHINGNESS
that isn't particles or waves, there keeps turning
up a LOT of evidence that there *is* ONE HELL OF A
LOT OF SOMETHING in NOTHING (like 7/8ths of the
universe.)

And then you get the problem that space and time are
basically the same thing, too. But not even different
forms of the same thing: they *are* the same thing.
So, still desperately trying to avoid the "aether"
thing, they look for a "time" particle or wave,
PRETENDING REALLY HARD that if they find a "time"
particle, it won't really be a "space" particle, which
IS NOT PERMITTED.

And then you have the mass/gravity circular thing.
So they look for a "mass" particle and a "gravity"
particle. But IT IS NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER that
"mass" and "gravity" are the same thing and/or that
they are a *function* of space time and *not* a
particle or wave.

Actually, I'm sort of glad that physics is only suffering
from an acute neurosis about being spanked by their long
dead old teachers who believed in "aether"; rather than
some seriously fucked up Freudian psycho-sexuality
thing.

If the latter was the case, we would prolly have lots of
cosmological models that looked like penises and vaginas.
And damned if the math wouldn't back them up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fatcontroller@come.to (Cardboard Box)

Some time between the hours of March 10th and Friday, IMBJR
<imbjr@imbjr.com> committed the following:

> I was recently watching the telly and was told that our universe came
> about thru colliding membranes in the 11th dimension. Sounds like a
> B-movie plot.

And WHAT, exactly, were these colliding membranes attached TO, and what
(natural) purpose did those membranes serve? And to what UNnatural purposes
were they put?

And how many were involved? In which positions? Did they use toys?

Sounds like pan-dimensional ET god porn to me!
---
Rev. Cardboard Box, money exorcisms a speciality
Tactical Nuclear Bubblebath (tacnukebubblebath.tripod.com)
Curator of the Unofficial Guide to Elf Life
(tacnukebubblebath.tripod.com/el/)
"Start a revolution - Stop hating your body" (Nully Fydyan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tesla Coil <tescoil@devnull.ilbbs.com>

On 18 Feb 2002, Joe Cosby wrote:
>> If the latter was the case, we would prolly have lots of
>> cosmological models that looked like penises and vaginas.
>> And damned if the math wouldn't back them up.
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.

Less than ideal when your universe has a dose of crab nebula.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bryan J. Maloney" <bjm10@cornell.edu>

In article <3FTb8.1851$Or3.336485@typhoon.mn.ipsvc.net>, "Sir Dr. Rev.
Siegfried The Red" <spammersdiesiegfried1@mediaone.net> wrote:

> idea comes along. So if postulating the idea of other dimensions
> explains a lot of shit, even though we didn't logically prove it,
> we'll stick with that idea until an idea comes along that explains
> things even better.

It's an old practice--take all the dangly bits and shove them into the
dangly bit box for somebody else to sort out later.

--
America is a wonderful country. Where else could a young Black man like
Michael Jackson grow up to be a middle-aged White woman?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bryan J. Maloney" <bjm10@cornell.edu>

In article <Xns91B9C87AB8331cometofatcontrolleri@202.20.93.13>,
fatcontroller@come.to (Cardboard Box) wrote:

> And WHAT, exactly, were these colliding membranes attached TO, and what
> (natural) purpose did those membranes serve? And to what UNnatural
> purposes were they put?

1: Each other
2: Collisions
3: More collisions

In article <3c700d14$0$35568$272ea4a1@news.execpc.com>, "St. Marc the
Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org> wrote:

> So you see that what you are considering a basic logic error is in fact a
> possible explanation for a problem with an explanation of a phenomenon.

Let me lay it out concretely:

1: Claim that gravity is carried by the graviton particle.
2: We have no evidence for this particle to exist.
3: We will INVENT a "dimension" that cannot be observed in which we
will CLAIM that gravitons do all their existing.
4: Therefore, this is how it is that we can validly and scientifically
claim these gravitons exist and act but we have no evidence of it.

How is it different from the following?

1: What we call "gravity" is the tugging of angels upon matter.
2: We cannot see these angels.
3: We will decide that these angels exist in a spiritual realm beyond
the senses of living mortals.
4: Therefore, this is how it is that we can validly and scientifically
claim these angels exist and act but we have no evidence of it.

Now I will lay out the matter abstractly:

Posit A.
Evidence of A cannot be found.
Posit condition B of A that precludes evidence of A being found.
Use B as supporting evidence of the existence of A despite all lack of
evidence.

In article <3C701760.44E4@succeeds.com>, like.excess@sex.org wrote:

> Ahem. One explanation for the phenomenon we call
> "Jesus' eternal grace" is his life as a man in the
> world.
...
> One problem with this explanation of the phenomenon
> is that there is no one alive who actually saw Jesus.
...
> One possible explanation is that Jesus lives on a
> different plane of existence than our own which is not
> directly observable to human beings.

Ah, but there is a VERY IMPORTANT (TM) difference! Gravitons are the
dogma of the Priests of the True God Physics, so they MUST be real.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joecosby@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby)

"Bryan J. Maloney" <bjm10@cornell.edu> hunched over a computer, typing
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Bryan J. Maloney" <bjm10@cornell.edu> laughed madly,
then wrote:

>In article <3C6FDD9F.13A5@succeeds.com>, like.excess@sex.org wrote:
>
>> (Brilliant physicists in need of some basic classes in
>> logic. What they are doing is the following:
>
>These ARE the same people who claim that time travel is impossible
>because that would "violate causality". But all their arguments in
>favor of this alleged "causality" biol down to "it would be too icky not
>to have it".

Causality is another thing scientificks can't let go of.

We still haven't solved the vast majority of differential equations.
We know that the majority of events in the real world are bound
inextricably with unresolvable chaotic indeterminacy. And we have
known for nearly a hundred years that causality is -not- woven into
the most fundamental aspects of the universe.

But still we KNOW that the universe is strictly causal.

Where is this beautiful simplifying causality that we can't observe?

still I don't mean to give them a hard time. I admire their quaint
religion and their dogged faith in it.

I guess it gives them a sense of hope. I wouldn't want to take that
away from them.

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com

"A Dangerous Toy. This toy is being made for the extreme priority
the good looks. The little part when the sharp part which gets hurt
is swallowed is contained generously.
Only the person who can take responsibility by itself is to play."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joecosby@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby)

"Bryan J. Maloney" <bjm10@cornell.edu> hunched over a computer, typing
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Bryan J. Maloney" <bjm10@cornell.edu> laughed madly,
then wrote:

>It's an old practice--take all the dangly bits and shove them into the
>dangly bit box for somebody else to sort out later.

"I am QUOAD, warrior-lord of the dangly bit dimension."

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com

The Ends Justify the Means: Philosophical Concepts That Make
Hot Coffeehouse Chicks Want to Jump You
- Philosophy for Dummies, chapter 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joecosby@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby)

"Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu> hunched over a computer, typing
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu> laughed madly,
then wrote:

>Joe Cosby wrote:
>
>>
>> What shape would the most basic particle be?
>
> From what I've been told, a tetrahedron.

So it has corners?

>> Obviously there is no answer, and that would be well-understood
>> already by anybody searching for 'gravitons'. But why then are we
>> using the conceptual tool of a 'particle' at all?
>
> Probably because it fits better than the others, so far.

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com

Show me that your footglands are bigger, metaphysically speaking, than my
WHOLE BODY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu>

Joe Cosby wrote:
>
> "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu> hunched over a computer, typing
> feverishly;
> thunder crashed, "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu> laughed madly,
> then wrote:
>
> > Like what? That's a new one on me.
>
> Like what what? What are you asking?

What fundamental aspects of the universe don't defer to causality?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org>

"Bryan J. Maloney" <bjm10@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-6A281F.12341818022002@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> Let me lay it out concretely:
>
> 1: Claim that gravity is carried by the graviton particle.
> 2: We have no evidence for this particle to exist.
> 3: We will INVENT a "dimension" that cannot be observed in which we
> will CLAIM that gravitons do all their existing.
> 4: Therefore, this is how it is that we can validly and scientifically
> claim these gravitons exist and act but we have no evidence of it.

The difference being that if you show a physicist data which his theory will
not fit, he will change his theory, whereas if you show a religious person
data which the theory of the existence of angels will not fit, he will
challenge the data. (It's also logically impossible to reconcile the notion
of a benevolent God with the existence of angels, but it's not impossible to
reconcile the observable universe with the existence of unobservable
dimensions.)

> How is it different from the following?
>
> 1: What we call "gravity" is the tugging of angels upon matter.
> 2: We cannot see these angels.
> 3: We will decide that these angels exist in a spiritual realm beyond
> the senses of living mortals.
> 4: Therefore, this is how it is that we can validly and scientifically
> claim these angels exist and act but we have no evidence of it.

If by "angel" you mean "entity which is responsible for the phenomenon known
as gravity," and if by "spiritual realm" you mean "location which is not
directly observable by human beings," there is no difference. However,
that's not what "angel" usually means and it's a rather torturous definition
of what "spiritual realm" usually means. Your analogy is maladequate.

If that was *all angels did,* then you could substitute the word "angel" for
"graviton." However, since angels are usually believed to be sentient, you
would be unnecessarily complicating things. There is no need for sentience
in an entity which always behaves exactly the same. Occam's Razor slices the
brains neatly off angels. And that's not even considering that while
gravitons only do one thing (carry gravity) if you implied that angels were
responsible for gravity, they might also do other things. Again,
unnecessarily complicated.

> Now I will lay out the matter abstractly:
>
> Posit A.
> Evidence of A cannot be found.
> Posit condition B of A that precludes evidence of A being found.
> Use B as supporting evidence of the existence of A despite all lack of
> evidence.

That is not what is happening here. Your last step is not applicable.

St. Marc

Back to document index

Original file name: The purple snipe of the magical - converted on Friday, 20 September 2002, 16:05