Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 25, 2015 at 11:42 am)Norman Humann Wrote: Hi, I'm going to be your pointless comment for the day
(March 25, 2015 at 3:52 am)Alex K Wrote: [...]you'll get a slightly different, more precise result (not noticeable in practise when dropping balls[...]
Lol
It doesn't matter then which formulas you use during puberty?
Nope. Everything sucks and your parents don't understand, with relativity or without.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
March 25, 2015 at 12:02 pm (This post was last modified: March 25, 2015 at 12:09 pm by JuliaL.)
When offering legal argument, it is conventional to start with a list of stipulated definitions.
Presumably, this is not done in philosophical discussion because the argument would get no further than the shape of the negotiation table.
What is truth?
1) If a proposition is in agreement with reality it is true. Oops, defined it with a term to which we may or may not have access (from Vroomfondel, Works Never Started)
2) If predictions made by a proposition actually occur that proposition is true. Oops, the future hasn't happened yet.
3) If past experience (potentially non-existent if history is bunk) is consistent with a proposition, that proposition is true.
I'll go out on a limb and choose 3) today.
Science is successful because science has been successful.
So successful in fact, that it's bastard sons, engineering & economics, are on the verge of pushing us off the planet. Good times?
Alex K: I advise you to stay shallow on your LHC explanations. I try to. Otherwise I find myself prefacing each statement with "If we're not a simulation of a brain in a vat running on a cosmic computer then...."
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat?
So, imagine a thought experiment where you let a ball drop (in a vacuum to get rid of complications like air resistance). With Newton's formulas, you can now calculate how long it takes to fall and what its velocity will be etc. You get some numbers out.
It'll be very accurate, but we already know that the theory is not perfect - if you use Einstein's formulas, you'll get a slightly different, more precise result (not noticeable in practise when dropping balls, but let's not get distracted by that technicality). So a question you might ask is now - in which sense do the Newton theory, and the things it talks about (such as Forces) exist in nature, or at least be reflections of aspects of nature. Can one say that relativity, which talks about somewhat different things such as curved spacetime, to achieve similar results, somehow gives us more truth about Nature?
I think the point is that we would like to use these theories for more than just calculating numbers such as how long does the ball take to drop, but would like to use them as explanations for what happens in the world, such as "earth attracts this ball with gravitational force" (Newton), or "earth curves spacetime, and thus the ball gets moving" (Einstein). In which sense are these explanations a true reflection of what happens in nature, and in which sense do the explanations of newer more precise theories come closer to that goal of explaining what is "really going on in nature".
Is this clearer?
Honestly, I'll have to re-read it a few more times to actually get it. I have always been a visual learner because of reading comprehension issues. I am told I have some form of dyslexia, but not where I see letters rearranged or backwards. It's the the wording of sentences and how my brain interprets the semantics of a sentence. It makes me feel really, really stupid.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work. If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now. Yes, I DO want fries with that.
March 25, 2015 at 12:16 pm (This post was last modified: March 25, 2015 at 12:21 pm by Alex K.)
I'd draw you a pic, but I still have to figure out how to visualize it.
Btw. It's normal to me that texts which convey a lot of dense information or abstract concepts need to be read many times to be comprehended. One can write them in a somewhat repetitive fashion which recapitulates the same point and tries to put it in different words (which is not a bad thing per se) such that the rereading is automatically included in the prose. That's what I'd usually do if I am writing a science book without tight space constraints. Alas, I was typing the above on my phone and being more verbose wasn't an option
(March 25, 2015 at 12:03 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote: Honestly, I'll have to re-read it a few more times to actually get it. I have always been a visual learner because of reading comprehension issues. I am told I have some form of dyslexia, but not where I see letters rearranged or backwards. It's the the wording of sentences and how my brain interprets the semantics of a sentence. It makes me feel really, really stupid.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
March 25, 2015 at 12:49 pm (This post was last modified: March 25, 2015 at 1:16 pm by Norman Humann.)
(March 25, 2015 at 11:57 am)Alex K Wrote:
(March 25, 2015 at 11:42 am)Norman Humann Wrote: Lol
It doesn't matter then which formulas you use during puberty?
Nope. Everything sucks and your parents don't understand, with relativity or without.
I was referring to "balls dropping", as in the colloquial and somewhat scienticifally inaccurate term for boys starting puberty... unless you got that and I misread your post.
March 25, 2015 at 1:23 pm (This post was last modified: March 25, 2015 at 1:28 pm by Angrboda.)
I notice that you haven't defined what it means for a theory to be false. I imagine theories that are empirically adequate may form a hierarchy of lesser and lesser demonstrability, but I don't know what it would mean to say a theory is false. If lack of accuracy defines falsehood, then all (past and present) theories end up being false. Perhaps this points to a deeper problem in that the binary values true and false tend to gut anything we can say about actual theories because accuracy of predictions (demonstration) is a gradated property, not a binary one. Perhaps that points to the No Miracles argument being phrased in terms of "more successful theories.... than less successful theories," and then the litmus of success is demonstrability as Ben suggests.
(March 25, 2015 at 1:23 pm)rasetsu Wrote: I notice that you haven't defined what it means for a theory to be false. I imagine theories that are empirically adequate may form a hierarchy of lesser and lesser demonstrability, but I don't know what it would mean to say a theory is false. If lack of accuracy defines falsehood, then all (past and present) theories end up being false. Perhaps this points to a deeper problem in that the binary values true and false tend to gut anything we can say about actual theories because accuracy of predictions (demonstration) is a gradated property, not a binary one.
Seems to me 'false' is just 'not true.'
But I haven't yet seen (other than my own) a functional definition of 'truth' here.
Using the definition of 'truth correctly predicts future events' then everything remains unproven in the present.
Using 'truth is whatever is consistent with prior experience' means that 'false' is whatever doesn't conform with the past. Degrees of falsehood would then be proportional to that lack of conformity.
Is there another?
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat?
(March 25, 2015 at 4:18 am)Alex K Wrote: I'd draw you a pic, but I still have to figure out how to visualize it.
This^ has always frustrated me about any subject, but it seems to be more common within QM and mathematics. I don't know how someone can write or know about a subject before they have visualized it. And yet I see it all the time. I find comfort that Feynman said "What I cannot create, I do not understand."
March 25, 2015 at 5:09 pm (This post was last modified: March 25, 2015 at 5:11 pm by watchamadoodle.)
(March 25, 2015 at 12:02 pm)JuliaL Wrote: 3) If past experience (potentially non-existent if history is bunk) is consistent with a proposition, that proposition is true.
I'll go out on a limb and choose 3) today.
Science is successful because science has been successful.
Maybe you need to say that the theory has been successful - not true , because it successfully predicted new experimental results in the past? Then you apply inductive reasoning to say that this theory will probably be successful in the future too?
(March 25, 2015 at 1:23 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Perhaps this points to a deeper problem in that the binary values true and false tend to gut anything we can say about actual theories because accuracy of predictions (demonstration) is a gradated property, not a binary one. Perhaps that points to the No Miracles argument being phrased in terms of "more successful theories.... than less successful theories," and then the litmus of success is demonstrability as Ben suggests.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
