Solar wrote: <snip>
Alfven looked back through history:<snip>But let us return to the theory of relativity and its direct impact on scientist. The four-dimensional presentation of the special theory of relativity was rather innocent. This theory is used every day in laboratories for calculating teh behaviour of high-energy particles, etc. As experimental physicists have a strong feeling that their laboratories are three-dimensional, firmly located in a three-dimensional world, the four-dimensional formulation is taken for what it is: a nice little decoration comparable to a cartoon or a calendar pinup on the wall.
3. General Relativity and the universe
3.1 Revival of Pythagorean Philosophy
On the other hand, in the general theory of relativity the four-dimensional formulation is more important. The theory is also more dangerous, because it came into the hands of mathematicians and cosmologist, who had very little contact with empirical reality. Furthermore, they applied it to regions which are very distant, and counting dimensions far away is not very easy. Many of these scientist had never visited a laboratory or looked through a telescope, and even if tehy had, it was below their dignity to get their hand dirty. They accepted Plato's advice to "concentrate on the theoretical side of their subject and not spend endless trouble over physical measurements". They looked down on observers and experimental physicists whose only job was to confirm their high-brow conclusions. Those who were not able to confirm them were thought to be imcompetent. Observing astronomers came under heavy preassure from prestigious theoreticians.
...Once again it was believed possible to explore the universe by pure mathematics."Cosmology: Myth or Science?" - Hannes Alfven
http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... t=15#p5162
I too was intrigued by the Plato quote - it was what made me read the Alfven piece. At a guess I would suggest that Plato is alluding to the unreliability of the senses. I am more or less convinced that when Plato uses the word 'reason' he uses it to describe the activity of both the lower and higher mind (in Plato's terminology). Or, put another way, sometimes he uses the word in the sense of contemplation or meditation rather than logic, analysis.StephanR wrote:I find this an intriguing qoute you give here. Does anyone know where exactly Plato made such advise?
I don't know more about it but it always crosses my mind whenver I hear a scientist making authorative claims.What I find difficult is in what way the conclusion from Quantum Mechanics about the observer/observation influencing the experiment is related to this. Does anyone know more about that?
Thank you for bringing the Mirandola book to my attention, I think I will give it a read. I do not see any great difference between Plato and Aristotle. They were both, after all, initiates into the Mysteries. I have my theories about what happened but they would take us way off-topic. I would be willing to air them in a different thread or via PM.
I think that you are correct about prickles and goo (this too fits in with my 'theory').