Letters to the Editor
mattwa33186
Published Letters: 403 Editor's Choice: 42
-
@Serai1
[Read the article: We are meant to be here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And you are twisting the meaning of the word "simple" within this context to suit your own purposes.
First, it doesn't matter what Occam's personal philosophy was or what he was trying to prove. Occam's Razor is not a theory or a hypotheses, it's a principle and a valid principle remains valid no matter what you are trying to prove or who is trying to prove it. The Razor has withstood that test many times over. It's good science even if it was, as you say, originally a philosophic principle and not a scientific one.
Second, in science the term simple refers to a lack of assumptions first, and a lack of complication second - that's where the "all things being equal" part comes in. Saying "God made the universe" and leaving at that is an assumption in its entirety. From a scientific point of view you have actually said nothing at all - you may as well have said that the farts of people from Alpha Centauri smell like bubble gum and relieve back pain. It isn't an answer to the question, its a non-answer because it doesn't contain a single provable element. You can't equate it with any other theory or hypothesis because there is nothing to equate. Occam's Razor shreds it at every point.
If you like Davies thoughts but also like science, read "A New Kind of Science" by Wolfram. Instead of trying to answer the big questions and jumping through all sorts of hoops to do it, like Davies, he sticks to proving (I am using the scientific definition of the word prove here) that we live in a rules based universe that is both predictable and explainable, and attempts to work his way back to the original seed rule that started it all. He does not devolve into the kind of speculative crap that Davies has given us here.
-
Horsepoaxswer is a measure of efficiency
[Read the article: Hip, hip, CAFE!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]More correctly, torque is a measure of efficiency and horsepower is an extrapolation of torque.
If there are 2 engines of a given identical displacement burning fuel at an identical rate, the one producing more horsepower is more efficient. And that is entirely possible in a modern ICE - the computers are most of the difference between a 2007 ICE and a 1990 ICE.
What can be done is to use this increased efficiency to allow for smaller displacement engines that use less fuel to produce the same horsepower. In Europe they used to (maybe still do) have outrageous taxes on engine displacement - a much better approach than CAFE and gas guzzler taxes because it encourages efficiency. Taxes on turbo and superchargers would be a good idea as well, since they allow an engine of a given displacement to burn more fuel.
And you are absolutely right about weight. Work is a measure of mass moved over time. Torque is a measure of work. And torque in an ICE is also, to a large degree, a function of the amount of fuel burned. Less weight means less work, which means less fuel burned to cover a given distance in a given time in a car of a given weight. Weight is the hidden enemy here, as subcompact cars have pretty much doubled in mass over the last 20 years. If we went back to 1985 weights for small cars,through the use of advanced materials and manufacturing techniques, fleet fuel efficiency would be greatly enhanced.
-
The Elephant is on the sun porch, not in the living room
[Read the article: We are meant to be here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course there are questions science can't answer. Science requires facts, or what are facts to the best of our knowledge, in order to attempt to answer any question. This is its greatest strength - facts can't reasonably be argued unless new information becomes available. And good science requires that those facts be re-examined when new information does become available.
And for that reason any attempt to use science to answer questions like "who created the universe?" and "why are we here?" is nothing more than trying to put a veneer of fact on top of a particular brand of faith. That's what Davies is trying to do, badly, along with all the Creation "Scientists". The problem isn't people in this forum saying that Davies is wrong because science says he is wrong. The problem is people like Davies trying to use their notariety and impressive educations to attempt to move a philosophical argument into the realm of science in order to give their position more credibility.
This isn't the 1700's any more. The Natural Philosophers like Burk, Leibnitz, and Newton don't have to invent science any more, they have already done so, and we don't have to try to make science align with the doctrine of the King's Church. Logical fallacy can and should be recognized as exactly that, including the fallacy that all the answers can be found through rational observation of our surroundings.
The questions of the existence of a creator, the true nature of sentience, and the purpose of life (if there is any) are outside the realm of rational scientific thought and we need to leave them there until some new knowledge is found that makes them subject to valid scientific argument. That may happen tomorrow, but it hasn't happened as of today.