The real numbers and time exist as concepts in theoryland

reany_at_asu.edu
Date: 01/24/05 

Date: 24 Jan 2005 08:13:01 -0800

AllYou! wrote:
> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:1106399139.145885.300860@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
[snip]

>
> > > > Fine. I'll inform you and the rest at the same time. That
> > scientific
> > > > knowledge produced by the scientific method is expressed
> > objectively in
> > > > the form of written statements of scientific definitions,
facts,
> > > > conventions, hypotheses, vetted laws, and vetted theories. One
way
> > or
> > > > another, those statements were assigned the truth values of
either
> > true
> > > > or false (usually true). How was this done?
> > >
> > > Through observation.
> >
> > Not exclusively. Conventions, such as what are standard ontologies
> > (such as at one time that space is Euclidean) and definitions to
> > standard terms are just established by mutual consent over long
periods
> > of time.
> >
> > Even observations have to be interpreted against already accepted
> > theories. A scientific fact is a statement held true by convention.
It
> > has no other foundation.
>
> All of which has not point

It is revealing that you still can't understand it.

[snip]

> >
> > One can hold to any statement come what may.
>
> Not by choice. And we're not here speaking of one, but rather, of
human kind. Any one
> person may be is such a delusional state as to convince themselves of
anything they wish.
> However, most people, and human kind as a whole, cannot hold to any
statement come what
> may. They are bound otherwise by their intelect.

BS!

Read up on Ignaz Semmelweis and how he coudln't change the minds of his
generation.

[snip]

> > The human mind can freely invent any theory or any concept or any
> > hypothesis it wants to, to "explain" or predict. Failure can always
be
> > explained away.
>
>
> Sure it can. However, the objective of that theory only begins to
gain validity as it's
> tested. There's never been any valid theory which predicts and
tests for the existance
> of time.

I've already addressed this claim of yours long ago. You may as well
claim that there is no test for the existence of the real numbers! The
real numbers and time exist as concepts in theoryland.

>
> > > > Physical means either 1) being of conventional visible matter
or 2)
> > > > being a concept, model, law, principle, or variable in a theory
> > that
> > > > makes empirical predictions.
> > >
> > > So splat rays are physical?
> >
> > If splat rays are described in a theory that makes empirical
> > predictions, it is "physical" to that degree.
>
> Where is the emperical theory for time? You've never provided one.

I doubt I would want to provide an "emperical theory for time." I do
not define "physical" as synonymous with "empirical." Empirical deals
with the visible (or sensible), i.e., with phenomena.

Whatever do you mean by the phrase "theory for time?" A theory is an
explanation in the form of a deductive system.

>
> > That is, things or
> > concetps are "physical" RELATIVE to particular theories.
>
> Then give me one which has been shown to *work* for time.

I have already done this many times. Pick any accepted big theory if
physics. They all use time as a variable.

>
> > But by my
> > definition of "physical," physical does NOT imply existence in the
> > world.
>
> Of course not. You've been all over the map on your theory of that
which is physical.
> How about that which is observable? Isn't that contained in your
definition of emperical?
> Emperical:
> 1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical
results that supported
> the hypothesis. b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or
experiment: empirical
> laws.
> 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in
medicine.

That's OK as a definition of empirical. Ooooooh. But notice children
that fearless leader provided a usage of "provable" that contradicts
his own claim about it he made in an eariler post (that it ONLY applies
to mathematics). I told him otherwise, but as usual, he didn't listen
to me. I only have 20 more years of study on this than he does, but he
cares not.

Science education is horrible!

>
> > > Math is physical?
> >
> > No. Math is a part of the language of physics.
>
> How is time any different than that?

Well, in the first place distinctions are arbitrary. In the second
place, time has operational definitions to usages of physical
instruments called clocks.

>
>
> > > BTW, you've never given me a theory which demonstrates the
> > physicallity of time. Care to
> > > now?
> >
> > I am never going to "demonstrate" the physicality of time. I
already
> > TOLD you that. The "physicality of time" is not demonstrated! It is
> > defined or not, arbitrarily. But by my definition of "physicality,"
the
> > following theories hold time as "physical": Newtonian mechanics,
SR,
> > LET, QM, GR, etc.
>
> Give me any theory wherein time is the object and not simply *used*
in it like math.

What do you mean by "the object"? I can't believe you still wnat to
argue this crap about time with me. Why don't you go argue with someone
who at least claims that time is real.

How is the measurement of time with a clock different than the
measurement of temperature with a thermometer or the measurement of
length with a ruler? In all three cases you have 1) a material
instrument of human manufacture, 2) You follow a set of instructions on
how to use it to measure or "take a reading," and 3) you use that
reading somehow.

[snip]

> > >
> > > Now, if you're asking if the differing apparent sizes of the moon
is
> > an illusion, then we
> > > must first use a common definition of the term *illusion*. Here
are
> > two which I'll take
> > > in tern.
> > >
> > > 1a. An erroneous perception of reality. b. An erroneous concept
or
> > belief.
> > > 2. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or
belief.
> > >
> > > Let's keep in mind that I infer from your poorly written question
> > that you're asking if
> > > the apparent *change* in the size of the moon is an illusion, and
not
> > if the apparent size
> > > of the moon at either point is the illusion.
> > >
> > > 1) Reality is not a term I recognize in any scientific
discussion,
> > but let's go with it
> > > just for now. Although the moon appears to change sizes, from
all of
> > my other
> > > experiences, including my education, I have no erroneous
perception
> > because my perception
> > > is that I'm observing the light reflected from the moon as
affected
> > by its path through
> > > the atmosphere. Therefore, although I've concluded that the
image
> > which I observe of the
> > > moon does change size, my perception is that the moon does not,
and
> > so there is no
> > > *erroneous concept or belief*.
> >
> > Your analysis was based on the use of a theory of light
propagation.
>
> I've never denied that. But your point in asking the question in the
fist place was to
> demonstrate that observations are just free inventions.

No. My point is that it requires a theory to tell us whether a
phenomena is an illusion or not! And theories are just made up things.

I have never said that observations are just free inventions.

I have said that observations are affected by our prior held beliefs
(theories and hypotheses).

I have said that explanations are free inventions as are physical
concepts.

I have said that people -- as individuals or in groups -- can hold to
any theory or to any statement come what may. They can always deny the
validity of any apparent contrary evidence.

Patrick

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarr>Reality!
    ... Physics is a study of the measurable and the ... generates the same math but without requiring absolute motion. ... that we are measuring it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr>Reality!
    ... Physics is a study of the measurable and the ... generates the same math but without requiring absolute motion. ... fact *how* it makes that distinction is illuminating. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Dimension of Time
    ... You don't even want to understand the language of physics. ... It would simply mean the cause would not always precede effect. ... guidance on your reading of relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Physics and Reality...
    ... > clearly separate maths from reality, ... When investigating the foundations of physics, ... "disover" electromagnetic phenomena; 4. ...
    (sci.physics)