@SophistiCat

Hey, you’re making a lot of the same points I would make if I held your view. What’s your background?

The thing is, you need much larger scales in order to detect redshifting due to expanding space. On the scale of a galaxy gravitational attraction overcomes this effect.

It’s smart to distinguish frequency shifting from different sources. It’s standardly used to measure front-back motion within our own solar system, where inflation is negligible. The flip side is that the mechanics describing motion throughout the galaxy will entail increasingly precise frequency shifts. Seeing as we just observed gravity waves, I think it’s fair to suppose we’ll eventually measure EM waves precisely enough to notice a subtle climb in error for objects farther out with much longer orbital radii. Now, you’re right that the net effect of gravity is negative, meaning things fall back to us, whereas the Hubble data mostly concern galaxies in permanent recess, but that doesn’t mean the space in our galaxy isn’t expanding. The small but non-zero acceleration due to inflation may show up as error in our orbital mechanics. It does in principle, anyway. Adequate measurement is a technological question, and not one I feel we can confidently settle for all inquirers at all times.

I think you are underestimating the underdetermination of theory by evidence in general, and the autonomy of physical theories at different scales/energies in particular.

I have a deep appreciation for the Duhem-Quine Thesis and other literary hallmarks on this topic, so I get where you’re coming from. However, I think the success of science must come down to constraints imposed by the external world. A theory succeeds inasmuch as it conforms to nature, if I may risk sounding naive. So, while observation may not fix your theory, it will still reward theories that conform better to the world. In the case of inflation, I’m not saying other creatures would talk about it the way we do, but I’m not convinced they’ll fail to theorize around the same constraints.

I realize physical theory isn’t some grand, unified corpus with logical dominos from one end to the other. I’m just saying, I think rightly, that the reductive pattern in scientific progress tends to unify unrelated phenomena in unforseeable ways. Historical examples abound. I’m sure no one thought Mercury’s odd precession had anything to do with the effect of gravity on light.

You seem to understand this well enough. I guess I just find it more compelling. I think the trend will continue, and it seems immodest to rule out the possibility that scientific progress on the small scale will explain cosmological phenoma like inflation.

Oh no, nothing can rule out Last Thursdayism :) This is where other, non-empirical considerations come in.

Yeah, it’s basically a Cartesian demon. I don’t blame you for lashing out at it. Annoys me that it gets so much space still in the universities.

@Codger A little tension in an internet forum is par for the course, man. There's still fun to be had.

Whatever, here's the short version.

@SophistiCat

How would they figure that out? Expanding space is validated by precisely the sort of astronomical observations that would not be available in that hypothetical future.

I'm suggesting this evidence may not be necessary. Even if we had to rely on red or blue-shifted light, Doppler Effects within our own galaxy may compel the same hypothesis - not that I'm convinced we could only discover the expansion of space through shifted light. The point is the mathematical nature of physics connects seemingly unrelated phenomena in unforeseeable ways, so it seems premature to rule out all possible evidence.

Oh no they don't. You can have all of nuclear chemistry and a static universe, no problem.

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know about that. At any rate, I never said that. I claimed that nuclear chemistry has cosmological implications. Our current theory of the fundamental forces tells us which structures/substances can exist, under what conditions they can come about and how long they would take to form. Combined with observations of stars of different classes and ages within our galaxy, that would give us a minimum age of the observable universe. So no, the current situation (observable galaxies or not) isn't consistent with the universe coming about last Thursday. I suspect other, more sophisticated hypotheses could also be ruled out.

Just posted a civilized reply but it’s not here anymore. Am I being moderated?

deleted - redundant

@Bitter Crank

That dude is awesome. Never heard of him, but that song has a way of making you take a hard look at yourself. Thanks for that.

I heard Krauss say that, and it annoyed me. i’m sure they’ll eventually discover space is expanding and then put 2 and 2 together. There’s a lot of science you can do without looking at other galaxies. Physics is so mathematical that laws governing nuclear chemistry have cosmological implications.

Krauss should have said the average time to reach our scientific maturity will increase after x years (5 billion? sounds low) due to the paucity of empirical clues. The average chance of reaching maturity will drop, surely, but it won’t be 0. Big existential/universal fail for Krauss.

Oh la la

C’est l’enfer

The discussion has degenerated into a political talk about Trump

I would say it was more of an alley with not much focus on Trump, but very well. It’s perhaps a bit past time to return to the main topic.

All very tolerant and laudable, but I’m thinking of worse catastrophe than conventional war or even genocide. Population explosion and mismanagement of resources and waste will be much worse. And I’m not being hyperbolic. The sheer mathematics are staggering. None of that is preventable without rational social choice. The situation is more critical than ever, I think.

Btw, bravo on the honesty. I live in CA where it makes the least difference how I vote. I’m thankful, actually, because it spared me the dilemma.

Agree, the two party system is an impediment

Yes, you’re quite right. It’s well known in decision theory and behavioral economics that people systematically fail normative standards of rationality. Indeed, accepting a post-hoc rationalization such as you might find in polls as causally explanatory is referred to as “the fundamental attribution error”. Still, one wants to avoid complete subjectivism in the political process. I’m not sure how to square the facts with the needs.

So how do we fix the errant course of politics? Failure will be catastrophic.

Gotcha. Excuse me for being impatient. But to be clear, I don’t want to take away anyone’s rights. Just like owning firearms and speaking your mind, I’m suggesting sensible boundaries.

That is a fair point. You’re probably right.

I don’t know whether I believe it makes no difference whether the electorate is, overall, better informed; but thanks for the constructive participation.

To all, I’m aware I’m making very provocative suggestions, but let’s please argue the question dispassionately. I’m a liberty-loving American with a healthy distaste for bigotry just like the rest of you. Maybe I’m dead wrong on this, so just listen to what I’m saying and help me correct the error. I think it’s disingenuous to go on about Trump voters (or whomever) and then pretend the same electorate is a reliable source of policy.

We can’t have rational political debate without assuming some stance or another is objectively true. I pointed out “true or not” applies to both equally as a logical property they share being subjects of rational debate.

Again, my argument is not that I don’t like how people are voting. My argument is the current system is a failure. I could be wrong, so I’m happy to debate it, but it is a matter of objective fact that either it’s failing or it’s not failing.

Not being condescending, I promise. I just honestly don’t see the merit in these questions. No offense, I find them disingenuous.

Yes, of course. Are you suggesting any policy putting restrictions on voter eligibility is tantamount to Jim Crow?

I’ve been reluctant to humor these rather captious objections, but I’ll try again.

Either the current political climate/direction/regime/whatever is right and justified or it is not. Just like frogs are amphibious or they are not. When I claim ppl who don’t agree frogs are amphibious are ill informed, you don’t say “disagreeing with you doesn’t make them ill informed”, for two reasons: (i) that’s clearly not my justification for calling people ill informed, and (ii) it’s not a controversial issue between us. If you think people are well informed, please state your case, else let’s please move on.

I can list 20 major issues, and we may disagree about how to rank them; but if we agree they’re all badly managed, then it follows that we agree that the most serious problems are badly managed. Our priorities are irrelevant.

On a much lighter note, your point about voter age restrictions is excellent. I think the logic is very comparable.

Okay. I respect that. I think my political views are essential, though. I don’t think voter restrictions necessarily conflict with popular sovereignty. Anyone can vote, just not before meeting certain standards of literacy and critical thinking. Disadvantaged groups would qualify for robust government support around educational goals.

I’m sure that still sounds suspicious, but what value is there in a dysfunctional system, fair or otherwise? Even our cherished freedom of speech has been hemmed in by the obvious need for certain restrictions. Same with firearms.

Hear, hear

“Uniformed votes” should not be controversial. Unless you largely approve of the political climate and direction of the country, it’s hard to see how you believe our electorate is well informed.

“Serious problems” might just as easily be “problems”, since I’m not convinced we’re getting much of anything right. But if you don’t think fiscal solvency, clean and plentiful water, affordable energy or environmental sustainability are serious issues, I have nothing left to say.

I’m not foolish enough to pursue equality of outcome. That would require much more severe inequalities. I’m a Rawls man. I’m for equality of opportunity. Trouble with voter qualifications is that they would likely benefit the educated more than the uneducated, and we know the spectrum of education overwhelmingly reflects social inequality.

@T Clark

Hey man. Relax with the ad hominem. I’m calling uninformed votes garbage, not people. Sheesh.

If you think we can have rational social choice on the back of money-manipulated ignorance, then why are we failing utterly to address any of our most serious problems?

I don’t know what just voter qualification would look like, but I’d be most concerned to ensure it doesn’t reinforce inequalities. Not sure that’s possible, so maybe the current system is indeed the best one. On the other hand, I don’t think an open mind holds anything sacred, whether the founders and eminent statesmen believed it or not.

- if I may politely differ with you, sir.

I would broaden that from maturity to all-around qualification. I’m not a firm believer in our brand of democracy precisely because having a pulse is the only qualification for voting. Garbage in, garbage out.

Sup. I’m just a nobody searching for decent conversation. I had a nice philosophy phase some years ago, studied a few hallmarks of the analytic school. It got too specialized for a hobbyist to follow, so I’m a tad superficial. Looking forward to some debate.

Maybe this attitude is typical of amateurs, but I think Quine’s legacy is underrated. I think PWS is a beautiful disaster. Whether race exists depends on how you define it. Successful science tells us how the world really is. I think a weak form of logicism is true. Searle has a solid account of linguistic meaning. Consciousness I really can’t understand. There’s too much emphasis on logic in the philosophy of time. Most the people I’ve heard criticize Rawls clearly didn’t read him carefully.

Meh, just some rambling before bed. Hello, everyone.