I am completely serious in this.

You made a post about a professor who wrote a book of absurd and shallow analogies purporting to show that some medieval and Renaissance scholars presaged some findings of modern physics.

It is within my scope as a member of these forums to point out how effete, scientifically meaningless, and factually absurd they are.

You know, it’s funny how it’s even mentioned in the book how inane those are who mock medieval scholastics because of (to put it in your terms) “absurd” questions like this one. Claiming that the question of locality is obsolete and ridiculous while the opposite is the case shows just how little you know about the subject.
The location of a material solid is provided by the space (in length, width and heigth) with which he coexists. A purely spiritual being, however, cannot be located unequivocally. While most scholastics assumed that a moving “intelligence” (in the medieval sense) is imprisoned in its sphere and stays everywhere and nowhere at the same time (in a physical sense it would be outside of space and time as an unmoved mover in its own frame of reference), taking up no space because of their nature, some people like Thomas Aquinas argued that this is impossible since it would imply that completely different causes could have the same effect.
Now in modern physics you’ve got this kind of problems in particle statistics. Bosons (as opposed to fermions for whom the Pauli exclusion principle applies) can, theoretically, be “stacked” because they are not bound by aforementioned principle. And what are photons? Bosons, oh. Another analogy.

Your own, subjective assessment. So how about, instead of being a condescending dick without any kind of respect, you let yourself in for this. Otherwise you can just stop because what you wrote adds nothing to the discussion that hasn’t been said before. You are just ranting while being rude.

Indeed. However, it is not within your scope as a rule-abiding member to do so in a vitriolic, derogative manner. Besides, pointing out that something is “scientifically meaningless” when it has been stated several times that the author makes no such claim is rather redundant, wouldn’t you agree?

And what exactly is “factually absurd” about this? What’s that even supposed to mean?

While it is true that finding something convincing or not is a subjective matter, you do realize that you can quantify the plausability of an analogy, yes?

Where did I insult you?

Which is precisely what people keep asking you to do and which you haven't done. All you've done is to say that there are lots of them and that you find them convincing. Simply listing a handful of analogies and describing them as 'synchronous' doesn't make your case.

You haven't provided any argument or line reasoning that shows that these analogies are meaningful, statistically significant, or if/how they are causally related and/or synchronous. You haven't even explained what the point of all this is, besides saying something vague about conciliating science and art, looking at the night sky and that we're all connected because matter=energy.

If you're wondering why the reaction in this thread has been so hostile and dismissive, it's because frankly that sounds more like someone on an LSD trip than someone trying to start a serious discussion. If you want a serious discussion, then addressing any one of those points would be a good bet.

If there's nothing you can offer which explains why these analogies are not just random coincidences or the product of an over-active imagination, then there's really nothing left to discuss.

Really? Swearing at people and calling them thick is considered an acceptable way of having a discussion where you're from?

1) Their number and quality makes it improbable that they are random coincidences.
2) You don’t understand the concept of synchronicity, do you?
3) I did explain the point. If you are not satisfied with it or can’t re-enact it then that’s on you.

Noting that you have a “thick skull” isn’t an insult in my book. If you are way more sensitive, well, bad luck.

And I still want you to come up with the analogies between the cup of coffee and a black hole. Stop pussying out.

So. Much. Scientism.

But this isn't right, at all. Electroweak surely was the first force to condense, though which (electromagnetism or weak nuclear) came first I'm not sure the physicists have agreed on. Gravity only gets to be evil if you don't think the modern folk are prepared to consider electricity and magnetism - which suggests that the professor's been spending *a little* too much time in his ivory tower of academics.

I get that this guy's got a doctorate. He's got a lot more education than I have right now. But his specialty is in clusters of dwarf galaxies (which, granted, bears heavily on the nature of universal expansion), not quantum cosmology. So right there I'm a little skeptical of his credentials in telling me how the universe condensed. You like his book? Awesome. But don't be surprised when you look through the comments here and see that there are a lot of people who aren't impressed. This guy is writing a book to settle a pet project of his, no doubt. Maybe the book's quite good. Enjoy it.

It's painfully obvious that you're not interested in having a constructive discussion Demut. You're accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being either stupid, a 'dick' or not reading or understanding your posts properly. You also have the gall to refuse to elaborate your points and accuse others of being rude and condescending. I don't know what you hope to gain by behaving like this, but this is certainly no way to conduct a grown-up discussion.

I'm 'pussying out'.

'cause it's keeping you down, man!

Ha, thank you.

Just try to jump from the 10th floor and you will see how evil gravity can be :D

Since I have not read the book in question, and have no wish to enter the rather heated discussion, I would just like to inject one thing I find fascinating in relation to the topic:

One of the things I find most interesting with Dante's work, is his apparent description of a 3-sphere; a purely abstract multi-dimensional mathematical entity. And he did it apparently all by accident, without any knowledge of the mathematics of the thing. Of course, it could be subject to interpretation, but I think it's amazing with philosophy and sheer thought can do.

That said, I don't think we should draw too many analogies between our time and the medieval period. What they had back then were philosophy and religion; trying to answer all question with the power of thought alone (and what they achieved with that was impressive for the time, don't get me wrong).
What we have today is a tool, a search - not so much for answers as for potential explanations. Regardless of what some people might want to believe, It is not the goal of science to answer all questions; it is all about making our best guesses based on what we can see and extrapolate from observation. There are no priests telling people to believe in the big bang, there are scientists who say it is currently our best guess; a guess we can throw away or build upon as new observations are being made.

Some things we will probably never know, and any true scientist will recognise this. Science is a tool; not as religion, and so it is by nature a totally different beast than the medieval world-view which was, at the core, all religious; locked and closed with gallows and stakes waiting for the doubters.

Yes, Dante made some very interesting and fascinating observations by the use of thought and philosophy available to him back in his time, but in the end, that's all there is to it. Like many science fiction writers, he happened to get some things right; uncannily so, but it was really just dumb luck more than anything. Not so say the man wasn't a genius of his age, for he was. Not to say there weren't intelligent human beings back then, for there were. So, while it is interesting to draw parallels between the thinking of then and now (and as well there should be: we are all just as much human beings as they were), but in the end their view of the cosmos and our place in it was really very different from our own.

Nah. Poor gravity tires but this is just what happens when it tries to introduce a new piece of matter into the group. Gets a bit rough.

Really? I was fine in Portal 2...

This is what he disproves. At the end one comes to the conclusion that their world view has much more in common with the current scientific world view than it has with the current public one that still is stuck in the 19th century.

Care to provide a source that contradicts the version described by Binggeli?

Well written (and a nice way of justifying your retreat), however, it is only half of the story. In fact I am very much interested in having a constructive discussion but with certain people being close-minded and not open at all for anything that doesn’t seem to fit their world view this is an impossible feat. You among others shut down any communication with your prejudices.

By the way, where exactly did I refuse to elaborate my points? Either show me or stop accusing me of the same, baseless things and get a grip.