Re: Regroup.

reany_at_asu.edu
Date: 12/08/04 

Date: 8 Dec 2004 10:48:18 -0800

AllYou! wrote:
> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:1102456434.436977.148030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

[snip]
> > > What do you mean by material? I'm not asking *who* gets to
decide if
> > something fits the
> > > definition, if asking what your definition is?
> >
> > Material is whatever convention claims it is at any moment.

This is a complete and valid definition, since I'm interested for the
moment only in the logical relationships among these terms.

> >
> > >
> > > And what is a measurement?
> >
> > A measurement is the assignment of a number to an event pair by a
> > freely invented rule.
> >
> > > I know what I mean by a measurement and how valid it is
> > > because my definition of what's physical,
> >
> > Great! Define measurement for us all.

Why didn't you define measurement?

[snip]

> >
> > Physical theories only ever deal directly with abstractions. They
give
> > indirect meaning to those abstractions by operational definitions
which
> > connect them to measuring instruments readings.
>
[snip]

> I accept, for the sake of argument if not more substantively than
that, your position that
> everything is an abstraction and a free invention of the human mind.

Let's get it right: Everything in a theory is an abstraction and a free
invention of the human mind. I do NOT claim that "everything is an
abstraction."

> I cannot, not do I
> even choose, to try to prove that I know what I know about anything.
For all I know, I'm
> like the character in the Matrix where a reality is being pumped into
my brain and none of
> what I think is real is real. For all I know, I'm imagining
everything of what I
> perceive. I've got that, I understand that, and I also understand
that everything I think
> is a free invention of my mind. I'll even go so far as to stipulate
to the notion that
> even that which I sense is a free invention of the mind. Please
re-read all of that so
> that we're clear on this point.

I don't go that far. I am willing to believe that there is some
"natural" sensation in the brain that results from stimuli, and that we
are then free to formulate freely concepts, precepts, and theories to
rationalize those concepts and precepts.

>
> I'll now assume, at great peril to this post, that you understand
what I just said and
> that you won't quibble about it.

I knew that we could finally reach a common ground!

> I know that before reading this sentence, you've already
> post drivel which quibbles with much of it, but so be it. Now, to
move forward, that part
> that you don't get is that as a free invention, as an anarchist to
science, I've banded
> together with other anarchists to accept a set of narrow rules in
order to facilitate a
> curiosity I have.

I've heard of anarchists joining together to destroy but never to
build, which requires cooperation.

> Although I do not assert anything as fact, for the sake of exploring
> that which we believe, we've freely created a set of rules to explore
that which we
> believe we sense.

In science a fact is any statement held true by convention. Usually the
standard by which statements are accepted as conventionally true is
based on a set of prior accepted conventional theories by which new
information, hypothese, adn theories are vetted.

>
> So, first I've decided to make the assumption, just for the sake of
exploration, that what
> I sense is consistent and operates to a set of rules I call Nature,
and then I assume that
> there are other people and that some of them sense what I sense.

First you said that science is rules; now you say that Nature is rules.

> Again, I claim nothing
> about the reality of any of this. It's all just an assumption but
one upon which I've
> decided to proceed.
>
> Now, me and all of my imaginary friends, and that includes *everyone*
(I'll just stipulate
> that when I speak of others, they are those who I imagine and assume
exist) who is willing
> to engage in the same pursuit.

That sounds like the basis of forming a consensus upon which a set of
conventnional beliefs can be formed.

> That even includes you.

Oh, well. You might arrive at a consensus anyway.

> We call this set of rules
> science, and we developed a sub-set of rules we call physics.

You can't really believe that physics is nothing more than a set of
rules. What about terms and defined concepts? Where do they fit in?

> Because those rules were
> developed upon those two assumptions, then any discussion of them,
and implementation of
> them, is also based upon those tow assumptions. IOW, I am free to
invent anything in my
> mind, and I've chosen to invent that perception of reality.

OK.

>
> So from here on in, whenever I discuss physics, I do so from that
perspective and with
> those who have done similarly. Included in that is the assumption
that I have a
> perception of receiving a whole host of sensory stimuli, and that
there is a consistency
> and predictability to all of it.
>
> Now, any further discussion with you on matters of physics must also
include those basic
> assumptions or we really have nothing more to discuss. It's fine to
have discussions of
> what those rules should be and where they've lead us, but if you
ignore the assumptions,
> then we've returned to pure fantasy and imagination and this is the
wrong forum for any of
> that.

Even granting the existence of an objective world apart from human
mind, there remains that truth to me that conceptions of what the world
contains as "objects" and rules are not the same thing as the things
and rules themselves, assuming that Nature has "rules."

Assuming that Nature does have "rules," what is the relationship
between Nature's rules and the laws of physics, if any?

Patrick

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Regroup.
    ... > everything is an abstraction and a free invention of the human mind. ... In science a fact is any statement held true by convention. ... and we developed a sub-set of rules we call physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Does the Curvature of Spacetime cause gravity?
    ... What is the simple physics question from ... > around the time of Johann Sebastian Bach I can't answer? ... > | Such clock sync convention is not a component of SR - it's ... > | SR can be stated in terms that never use any clock sync. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: On The Subject of The Mosquito And The Ladder
    ... So deriving the Lorentz transformations has hardly any physical ... To get at the physics you need *physical* assumptions ... So if you want to attack ... paradoxical, but it *can't* be, since it follows from convention ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: On The Subject of The Mosquito And The Ladder
    ... So deriving the Lorentz transformations has hardly any physical ... To get at the physics you need *physical* assumptions ... So if you want to attack ... paradoxical, but it *can't* be, since it follows from convention ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Whats your fall fantasy project, babies?
    ... I don't have a *particular* project in mind. ... I'm trying to get a bunch of stuff ready to take with me to a convention I'm going to, ... shape, texture, your adoration and passion. ...
    (rec.crafts.beads)