Author Topic: The Black Hole images  (Read 457 times)

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 840
  • Thanked: 630 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: The Black Hole images
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2019, 05:52:12 AM »
That's a minority of scientists - they are just over-represented by the media.  Most just want to run their experiments and analyze their data.  And even if they inject their personal philosophies into their commentaries, it doesn't affect the actual work (in the hard sciences) - you can't inject a personal philosophy into an equation

But you can into theory and your choice what to model by equations. Heisenberg's matrix mechanics is a case in point. The truth is it's never left at mere formalism that models meaurements; it's always interpreted in a metaphysical paradigm and presented as a view of an objective reality.

Quote
and astronomical objects are what they are regardless of what anyone thinks.

And what are they? What I see here is an image, not an "object". What I see in the data are behaviours of measuring instruments, not an "object". What I encounter in the mathematical theories of astrophysics are ways to tranform and predict information, not an "object".
« Last Edit: April 13, 2019, 05:54:48 AM by Kreuzritter »
 

Offline cgraye

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: The Black Hole images
« Reply #16 on: April 13, 2019, 10:55:07 PM »
I think, though, that in general too many scientists today (perhaps because the press wants "conclusions" or predictions from findings, or both) do offer inappropriate interpretations of the data, while separately speculating from data too insignificant to make projections.

Then there is the constant effort to convert theories (e.g., evolution) to fact.  I have also seen an increasing rush to formal acceptance of more recent theories than evolution, and I don't think that is an entirely media-driven movement. You and I probably disagree on the number of irresponsible scientists out there.  I.m.o., several per year are too many.

I wouldn't single scientists out for that, or really even the media.  The truth of the matter is that the mechanical philosophy that prevailed over classical philosophy in the 17th century or so has pervaded everything to such an extent that almost everyone - scientist, reporter, or otherwise - just takes it for granted and reads it into everything now.  Unfortunately, that problem can't be solved just by scientists keeping their opinions to themselves - it would take a serious academic and even cultural shift.
 

Offline cgraye

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: The Black Hole images
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2019, 11:05:42 PM »
But you can into theory and your choice what to model by equations. Heisenberg's matrix mechanics is a case in point.

What specifically about Heisenberg's matrix mechanics do you mean?

Quote
And what are they? What I see here is an image, not an "object". What I see in the data are behaviours of measuring instruments, not an "object". What I encounter in the mathematical theories of astrophysics are ways to tranform and predict information, not an "object".

Well, yes, it's an image...of an object.  How can you have an image of something that is not an object (unless it is a drawing or some other work of art)?  Detectors detected radiation and that information was compiled into an image.  That's essentially the way any camera works, or even our eyes.

What are they?  Meaning black holes?  Objects where a lot of mass has been packed into a very small space, affecting the trajectories of other objects in a certain way, including the way the radiation captured in the image was affected.
 

Online Miriam_M

  • Mary Garden
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5771
  • Thanked: 3557 times
  • Never have been "MiriamB"
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: The Black Hole images
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2019, 01:45:57 AM »
I think, though, that in general too many scientists today (perhaps because the press wants "conclusions" or predictions from findings, or both) do offer inappropriate interpretations of the data, while separately speculating from data too insignificant to make projections.

Then there is the constant effort to convert theories (e.g., evolution) to fact.  I have also seen an increasing rush to formal acceptance of more recent theories than evolution, and I don't think that is an entirely media-driven movement. You and I probably disagree on the number of irresponsible scientists out there.  I.m.o., several per year are too many.

I wouldn't single scientists out for that, or really even the media.  The truth of the matter is that the mechanical philosophy that prevailed over classical philosophy in the 17th century or so has pervaded everything to such an extent that almost everyone - scientist, reporter, or otherwise - just takes it for granted and reads it into everything now.  Unfortunately, that problem can't be solved just by scientists keeping their opinions to themselves - it would take a serious academic and even cultural shift.

Another good point, yes.
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 840
  • Thanked: 630 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: The Black Hole images
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2019, 05:49:01 AM »
But you can into theory and your choice what to model by equations. Heisenberg's matrix mechanics is a case in point.

What specifically about Heisenberg's matrix mechanics do you mean?

Specifically, in his 1925 paper, the radical re-interpretation, based in his quasi-positivist observability principle, of the meaning of physical variables and transformation of the atom and orbits of bound electrons from a geometric spacetime picture and kinematic phenomenon into a purely formal statistical model of spectrographic data. Heisenberg even wanted to get rid of experimentally observable kinematic paths of free electrons. In any case, this is the motivation for choosing energies and state transition rates as the "observable quantities" and the mathematical formalism which turned out to be equivalent to that of matrices.   

Quote
Quote
And what are they? What I see here is an image, not an "object". What I see in the data are behaviours of measuring instruments, not an "object". What I encounter in the mathematical theories of astrophysics are ways to tranform and predict information, not an "object".

Well, yes, it's an image...of an object.  How can you have an image of something that is not an object (unless it is a drawing or some other work of art)? Detectors detected radiation and that information was compiled into an image.  That's essentially the way any camera works, or even our eyes.

In the same way 99% of people will tell you that an image seen in a dream does not "correspond" to any object in a "real world" that is "causing" it. I'm not logically obliged to follow some model of object -> emission fo some objects -> interaction with some other objects -> etc. -> eventual interaction with eye object -> stimulation of neural objects -> magical popping into existence of visual phenomena and colour as "epipheomena" of an abstract theoretical world geometrically conceived. Heck, one can even go the route of the "simulation hypothesis" and draw the analogy with an image appearing on a screen as an object in a computer game being generated by a function object as mere information, or beyond that to the fact that the final image bears absolutely no resemblance to what's found in the magnetic storage medium that encodes it. Of course there ar metaphysical presuppositions at play when one begins to talk about the existence of physical objects and what they are.

Quote
What are they?  Meaning black holes?  Objects where a lot of mass has been packed into a very small space, affecting the trajectories of other objects in a certain way, including the way the radiation captured in the image was affected.

That doesn't really answer an ontological question posed to a tautological statement about stellar objects being "what they are". What are such "objects"? In the popular model of reality, sensation and cognition, they are certainly not anything directly observable as a phenomenon of conscious awareness but decidely theoretic metaphysical constructs that appear to only have a formalistic content as points in a causal schema that attains soem meanign through the reality of subjective experience. Mass, yes, that's a mathematical quantity involved in the beahaviour of "measuring instruments" which are themselves known only through the content of sensation and abstracted into "objective" existence from these.
 

Offline Sempronius

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 476
  • Thanked: 242 times
Re: The Black Hole images
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2019, 07:41:58 AM »
Interesting to read, Kreuzritter, even though I dont understand much..

But I always wonder what is it that they are actually seeing through their telescopes?
 

Offline cgraye

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: The Black Hole images
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2019, 07:47:18 PM »
Specifically, in his 1925 paper, the radical re-interpretation, based in his quasi-positivist observability principle, of the meaning of physical variables and transformation of the atom and orbits of bound electrons from a geometric spacetime picture and kinematic phenomenon into a purely formal statistical model of spectrographic data. Heisenberg even wanted to get rid of experimentally observable kinematic paths of free electrons. In any case, this is the motivation for choosing energies and state transition rates as the "observable quantities" and the mathematical formalism which turned out to be equivalent to that of matrices.

What difference does that make?  Mathematical models are just that - abstract mathematical models.  There can be totally different mathematical models that are equivalent.  The only thing that matters is whether they are useful.  Can we use them to predict the outcomes of experiments?  The one that allows us to predict experiments most accurately and precisely is the best model.  But at the end of the day it is only a model of reality, not reality itself.

Quote
In the same way 99% of people will tell you that an image seen in a dream does not "correspond" to any object in a "real world" that is "causing" it. I'm not logically obliged to follow some model of object -> emission fo some objects -> interaction with some other objects -> etc. -> eventual interaction with eye object -> stimulation of neural objects -> magical popping into existence of visual phenomena and colour as "epipheomena" of an abstract theoretical world geometrically conceived. Heck, one can even go the route of the "simulation hypothesis" and draw the analogy with an image appearing on a screen as an object in a computer game being generated by a function object as mere information, or beyond that to the fact that the final image bears absolutely no resemblance to what's found in the magnetic storage medium that encodes it. Of course there ar metaphysical presuppositions at play when one begins to talk about the existence of physical objects and what they are.

What?  We see things by detection of electromagnetic radiation.  In this case, something made that pattern of electromagnetic radiation we detected.  It wasn't a dream or a simulation, unless the entire universe is a dream or a simulation.

Quote
That doesn't really answer an ontological question posed to a tautological statement about stellar objects being "what they are". What are such "objects"? In the popular model of reality, sensation and cognition, they are certainly not anything directly observable as a phenomenon of conscious awareness but decidely theoretic metaphysical constructs that appear to only have a formalistic content as points in a causal schema that attains soem meanign through the reality of subjective experience. Mass, yes, that's a mathematical quantity involved in the beahaviour of "measuring instruments" which are themselves known only through the content of sensation and abstracted into "objective" existence from these.

I think you are thinking too hard about this.  They are objects, things - just like stars or planets.
 
The following users thanked this post: Vetus Ordo, GloriaPatri, Fleur-de-Lys

Online Vetus Ordo

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1610
  • Thanked: 1170 times
  • Religion: The Way
Re: The Black Hole images
« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2019, 05:06:58 PM »
Maybe this video will be useful:

DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: GloriaPatri

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 840
  • Thanked: 630 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: The Black Hole images
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2019, 08:42:17 AM »
Specifically, in his 1925 paper, the radical re-interpretation, based in his quasi-positivist observability principle, of the meaning of physical variables and transformation of the atom and orbits of bound electrons from a geometric spacetime picture and kinematic phenomenon into a purely formal statistical model of spectrographic data. Heisenberg even wanted to get rid of experimentally observable kinematic paths of free electrons. In any case, this is the motivation for choosing energies and state transition rates as the "observable quantities" and the mathematical formalism which turned out to be equivalent to that of matrices.

What difference does that make?  Mathematical models are just that - abstract mathematical models.  There can be totally different mathematical models that are equivalent.

You stated that one cannot inject a personal philosophy into an equation.  I contested that an asseration by example and elaborated upon that example when questioned about it by you. Stop shifting the goalpoasts.

Quote
The only thing that matters is whether they are useful.  Can we use them to predict the outcomes of experiments?  The one that allows us to predict experiments most accurately and precisely is the best model. 

That is itself a philosophical opinion, derived knowingly or not from Pragmatism, on the meaning and value of physical theories.

Quote
But at the end of the day it is only a model of reality, not reality itself.

Now you've shifted from it being a only a useful predictor of "experiments", which would only make it a model of effects upon the isntruemtns that are used to measure experimental outcomes, to being a model of "reality". The truth is that physics, in the formalism of its theories, goes far beyond how someone like Ernst Mach wanted to conceive of its objects and into making ontological propositions. Every time physicists go on to announce the dicovery of a new "particle" based on some theory that accounts for a measurement they go beyond what is logically warranted by the data and on to makign an ontoloigcal claim.

Quote
Quote
In the same way 99% of people will tell you that an image seen in a dream does not "correspond" to any object in a "real world" that is "causing" it. I'm not logically obliged to follow some model of object -> emission fo some objects -> interaction with some other objects -> etc. -> eventual interaction with eye object -> stimulation of neural objects -> magical popping into existence of visual phenomena and colour as "epipheomena" of an abstract theoretical world geometrically conceived. Heck, one can even go the route of the "simulation hypothesis" and draw the analogy with an image appearing on a screen as an object in a computer game being generated by a function object as mere information, or beyond that to the fact that the final image bears absolutely no resemblance to what's found in the magnetic storage medium that encodes it. Of course there ar metaphysical presuppositions at play when one begins to talk about the existence of physical objects and what they are.

What?  We see things by detection of electromagnetic radiation.  In this case, something made that pattern of electromagnetic radiation we detected.  It wasn't a dream or a simulation, unless the entire universe is a dream or a simulation.

I see you didn't grasp a word of what I wrote. I never asserted it's a dream or simulation. You've once again ingored the issue you brought up and gone off at a tangent. To get back to the point: no, you still have not explained what a "stellar object" and such "being what it is" means, and yes, you're injecting personal philosophical convictions, anemyl metaphysical views, into the narrative. And no, there's no logical demand that "something" as an object "made" what was detected.


Quote
I think you are thinking too hard about this.  They are objects, things - just like stars or planets.

Again you've said nothing. Rmeinds me of the argumentum ad lapidem. And I will continue to think hard in a world in which people ceaselessly inject a de facto physicalist view of the material world into narratives while totally ignoring what they are doing as if such where just "a given", "self-evident" or "common sense".
« Last Edit: April 16, 2019, 08:47:56 AM by Kreuzritter »
 

Offline cgraye

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: The Black Hole images
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2019, 11:03:04 PM »
You stated that one cannot inject a personal philosophy into an equation.  I contested that an asseration by example and elaborated upon that example when questioned about it by you. Stop shifting the goalpoasts.

I'm not shifting anything.  There are no personal philosophies in matrices or any other mathematical objects.  There cannot possibly be, since mathematical equations are nothing but relationships between quantities.  No matter what one may think or why one may pursue an idea, those thoughts cannot be represented in equations.

Quote
That is itself a philosophical opinion, derived knowingly or not from Pragmatism, on the meaning and value of physical theories.

No, it comes from the nature of mathematics - equations are, by their vary nature, abstract mathematical structures.  The universe is a concrete particular.  No matter what equation you write, or how you manipulate it, it can never be anything more than that, and its explanatory power is limited to showing or predicting the relationships between quantities.

Quote
Now you've shifted from it being a only a useful predictor of "experiments", which would only make it a model of effects upon the isntruemtns that are used to measure experimental outcomes, to being a model of "reality". The truth is that physics, in the formalism of its theories, goes far beyond how someone like Ernst Mach wanted to conceive of its objects and into making ontological propositions. Every time physicists go on to announce the dicovery of a new "particle" based on some theory that accounts for a measurement they go beyond what is logically warranted by the data and on to makign an ontoloigcal claim.

Particles are entities in a theory, not in reality.  Whenever we say we have discovered a particle, we mean we have discovered something that behaves in a manner that corresponds in some way to an entity in a mathematical model.  That technicality might be lost in a popular science explanation or a mainstream news story, but it is important.  There is always the possibility of having a different model that predicts the same phenomena in a language other than particles.

Quote
To get back to the point: no, you still have not explained what a "stellar object" and such "being what it is" means, and yes, you're injecting personal philosophical convictions, anemyl metaphysical views, into the narrative. And no, there's no logical demand that "something" as an object "made" what was detected.

Non-things don't make electromagnetic waves.

Quote
Again you've said nothing. Rmeinds me of the argumentum ad lapidem. And I will continue to think hard in a world in which people ceaselessly inject a de facto physicalist view of the material world into narratives while totally ignoring what they are doing as if such where just "a given", "self-evident" or "common sense".

I am specifically drawing a distinction between reality on the one hand and what aspects of it can be captured by physical theories on the other.  The point being that it doesn't matter what metaphysical errors anyone is making in his own thoughts - those errors cannot propagate to equations in physics because of the limited scope of what those equations can say.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2019, 11:08:00 PM by cgraye »
 

Online Miriam_M

  • Mary Garden
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5771
  • Thanked: 3557 times
  • Never have been "MiriamB"
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: The Black Hole images
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2019, 03:48:20 AM »
I am specifically drawing a distinction between reality on the one hand and what aspects of it can be captured by physical theories on the other.  The point being that it doesn't matter what metaphysical errors anyone is making in his own thoughts - those errors cannot propagate to equations in physics because of the limited scope of what those equations can say.

Unfortunately, I think your important distinction is lost on most of the readership of the MSM, as well as those in academia.