An Essay Concerning Human Misunderstanding: Why It Cannot Be Inferred From Empirically Acquired Information That The Higgs Boson Has Been Observed by Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet

Marcoen,

"things like tables, bears, needles, or any other macroscopic object subjectable to contact forces can be observed directly."

My point was that even direct observation is circumscribed by the limitation of the 5 senses themselves. If we claim to know anything in itself, then we cannot discover anything more about it....since we allegedly know it intrinsically.

"Particles get their mass - at least according to the Standard Model - by interaction with the Higgs field. The Higgs boson is a wave in the Higgs field.'

- The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle - not a wave - of mass ~125 Gev.

- How can particles be particles when they move through a Higgs field before acquiring mass... that is, how can they be particles without mass?

- What experiment has observed the acquisition of mass by a massless particle moving in an Higgs field?

- How does Higgs mass creation differ from pair creation by convergent gamma rays?

Cristi

Be careful to differentiate between the practical and the metaphysical when considering the difficulties of knowing. Contrary to Tom's view, objective knowledge is the equivalent of reality, for us. And that has nothing to do with perception/thinking, which has no affect on the physical circumstance.

Something exists independently of the mechanisms whereby we are aware of it. But we can only have knowledge of it, and by virtue of a physical process. So, while we must assume that there is the possibility of an alternative, this is irrelevant, because we cannot know it. We can know what it is possible for us to know, ie there is some definitive body of knowledge, but there are a number of practical difficulties in doing this. We will know, in any given situation, that we have 'got it right' by default, that is, after a sufficient duration, no new knowledge arises, despite efforts to discover such. At which point we can then deem that knowledge to be the equivalent of our reality.

Paul

Marcoen

"I side with Kant: by sensory observation we cannot possibly get to know what the thing-in-itself is"

Yes we can. Because if we know how light works we can then reverse engineer what is received and discern what occurred which the light represents.

One, especially philosophers, might still want to argue that this is a function of light. To which you point out that science deals with the real world as it is manifest to us.

Paul

Paul

Marcoen

"for every individual it is an absolute certainty that he exists. But that's also where the consensus ends"

Really? So what is the difference between being aware of oneself and being aware of the rest of physical existence?

Paul

The whole strategy of understanding the laws of nature solely using mathematics is running out of steam. Statistically, there is supposed to be a higgs particle that gives mass to weak force particles. Whatever statistical ghost the higgs might be, it deserves the prize as being the most useless discovery in physics. The Higgs boson and Higgs field seem to have nothing to do with inertia, gravity or speed of light/relativity/time dilation.

I am surprised that nobody in the science community has said: what mysterious phenomenon is this special relativity that particles are not allowed to pass each other at speeds exceeding c. What is the "it" that demands this "bit", this relativistic calculation of v^2/c^2? It is, as if by some invisible magic link that time dilation and length contraction are forced to occur between particles that pass each other at relativistic speeds.

What is this "it" that restricts particles to the speed of light, and causes funny time dilation (time progression effects)? Is this "it" some kind of mechanism for time itself? Can we figure out how to speed up and slow down the time progression of regions of space the same way we can speed up and slow down computer processors by adjusting the clock speed. By discovering the mechanisms of time dilation and relativity, can we create TIME DILATION FIELDS? With time dilation fields, can we hijack mechanisms of gravity?

You can chase Higgs statistical ghosts if you like, but I guarantee it's going to convince everyone that homo sapients won't discover the warp drive.

Marcoen: you have a mistaken view about what it is to observe something. You suppose that to observe something we have to observe it *directly* (you say we haven't observed the Higgs boson because we've only observed its decays). But this is absurd. To observe something's decays to is observe *its* decays -- that is, it is to observe the thing *indirectly* by virtue of its effects.

A simple example to illustrate: suppose I see my wife in a mirror. Have I seen her? Yes. But not *directly*, only by the effects of light bouncing off the mirror. By a similar token, if our theory states that a Higgs Boson will have effects X, Y, and Z but *not* A, B, and C, and then we observe those very things, we have observed the thing *by* its effects.

You seem to think that this commits a logical fallacy. That if a theory T says p-->q and we observe q, it is wrong to infer p. In one sense you're right, in another sense you're wrong. There are always an infinite number of different theories that can imply the same observations. So, we might distinguish the Higgs Boson theory from the Schmiggs boson theory from the Schliggs boson theory...all of which imply the observations made at the LHC, the only difference is that the Schmiggs boson theory implies that we will observe garden gnomes if we travel to alpha centauri and the Schliggs boson theory implies that we will observe beer spontaneously combust on the planet Gliese. *All* of these theories are consistent with the LHC observations...but does this mean we shouldn't think the Higgs theory is more likely to be true than the others? Of course not.

The reason why the Higgs theory is the *best* theory -- and one that counts as "confirmed" -- is because, is science, confirmation is a matter of *matching* the implications of our simplest, most powerful theories with observation. This is, as you note, not correct *logically*, but then again science isn't *deductive* in nature; it is *inductive* and *abductive*. And the logic of induction and abduction is quite different. It is not fallacious to assume p in the case of p-->q and q is observed as an *abductive* matter because, in that case, the theory T might be the *best* explanation of why q was observed.

Anyway, that's where you've gone wrong. You've supposed that observation and confirmation must be deductive in nature when that's just not how science works.

Marcoen

You are confusing two issues. The point is we can potentially know, but it is, practically, very difficult, if not impossible in some areas. The argument that we can never know, is spurious, because that is stated in respect of the fact that there may alternatives. But these are possibilities which we cannot know, so whilst the statement is true, it is irrelevant and misleading. Science deals with what we can potentially know, this is, for us, physical existence.

Paul

Marcoen

"the fact that you are aware of an outside world doesn't necessarily mean that the objects of your sensory experience and imagination have an existence outside you"

As per the post below which I wrote first, you (and indeed most philosophers) are confusing physical existence as knowable to us, with the logic that there might be an alternative. This is irrelevant, we cannot know it. Science is concerned with the knowable, and establishing that objectively, albeit we have to presume it might just be one possibility. And within existence as knowable to us, it most definitely occurs independently of us. Us there really being the awareness function. Because, as per my point, we are aware of ourselves as a physical entity in the same way that we are aware of anything else.

Paul

Paul wrote, " ... if we know how light works we can then reverse engineer what is received and discern what occurred which the light represents."

In fact, we do know how light works. That does not imply that we know what light "is" other than the empirical fact that it is identical to electromagnetic radiation. The further fact that *all* communication among *all* particles and bodies is limited to the speed of light compounds our ignorance of "what light represents" because in principle it represents *everything* we know about the world. Reverse engineering is therefore impossible in the case of a world that gives no indication -- either in theory or empirical observation -- of being engineered in the first place.

Tom

Marcoen

I am lost, and apologies if I am assuming you are saying something you are not. However, given previous posts, but without tracking them down....So can you confirm that you agree:

1 Physical existence is what we must presume is possibly only one form of existence, but it is what is potentially knowable to us, which is the function of a physical process. An alternative is only a logical possibility, and since we cannot know it, it is irrelevant. The point being that arguments which assert we can 'never know', etc in the context of a possible alternative are spurious. Because what is actually being said is that we cannot know what we cannot know, a useless statement of the blindingly obvious. Or worse still, it is asserting what can only be beliefs. But of course, if the right words are used these assertions can appear the product of 'deep thinking'/quasi scientific.

2 Physical existence is not affected by any form of sensing (particularly sight), or measurement. It is independent of the mechanisms which enable sentient organisms to be aware of it.

Paul

Marcoen

With respect to the physical existence we can investigate, knowledge of it is all we have. So Kant, as others, is not differentiating what can be known, from another possible alternative, which is irrelevant, because it cannot be known. The ultimate state we can achieve is knowledge, which after exhaustive testing, is verified. At that point we can deem it to be the equivalent of physical existence. We never have some form of 'direct access' to existence, and possible alternatives thereto.

So again, as stated above, pointing out that we cannot know what we cannot know, is not exactly earth shattering. But that is not really what they meant.

Paul

Tom

"In fact, we do know how light works. That does not imply that we know what light "is""

If I understand what was meant by this assertion, then it contains the lack of differentiation of context I keep referring to in recent posts here. We can only know existence as it is manifest to us (that is not a point about light, per se). There is always the possibility of an alternative, so we can never say what it 'really is'. But if we know what it is within the existentially closed system within which we are trapped, which is the implication of your 'we know how light works', then that is it.

What is this "communication"?

Without distinguishing the 'carrier' from the 'configuration' which the eye utilises, as that is too much detail for this point, light has physical properties, one of which is its speed of travel. Which must have an effect of the 'quality' of its ability to represent. So it may be very difficult, if not impossible to extrapolate, what occurred, but as I said, this is a practical problem, that is, the potential is there. That being a different state from the irrelevant point that we just cannot know what is occurring, which is an assertion based on a failure to understand what constitutes physical existence, and how it must occur, ie the reference is to what we cannot know, and should therefore not be trying to find out.

"it represents *everything* we know about the world"

Not so. Light is the medium through which we know of everything in terms of sight.

"Reverse engineering is therefore impossible..."

This is a spurious response, because it does not represent what I said.

Paul