The idea that something is 'measureable' is a human invention

reany_at_asu.edu
Date: 01/24/05 

Date: 24 Jan 2005 12:06:35 -0800

AllYou! wrote:
> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:1106583181.755731.16620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > AllYou! wrote:
> > > <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:1106399139.145885.300860@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[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.

A theory either works well in matching its predictions to measurments
or it doesn't. What "validation" is needed beyond that? Physics isn't
metaphysics. Why do you keep asking if time is valid? Time is just a
made up concept as is EVERY other physical concept used in physics.

The only justification any concept needs is to find a home within a
theory that works.

> >
> > 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 theory.
>
> I agree with that. But what you never address is the difference
between this and other
> elements of a theory. You're unable to grasp the difference between
that which might be
> *used* in a theory and the object of a theory.

What do you mean by "the object of a theory"?

> Again, where is the theory that doesn't
> simply take the physicality of time as a given?

I couldn't care less. I'm not trying to champion the cause you are
trying to debunk. GO find a champion of the cause you hate and argue
with him or her.

> Where are there any measurements
> performed to validate any theory which predicts the behavior of time,
and which don't
> actually measure the behavior of some other phenomenon?

I don't know what you mean exactly, but go study up on the Duhem-Quine
thesis.

> I can have a theory of how
> biscuits will rise in the oven, but calling them kittens won't make
it so.

Yes it will. It may be idiosyncratic. It may be a usage accepted by
just one, but it will. It's the damn theory that tells you what you
observe! You accept a physical theory the same way you accept a
politician: by believing in his or her particular bull***!

[snip]
> > >
> > > Where is the emperical theory for time? You've never provided
one.
> >
> > I doubt I would want to provide an "emperical theory for time."
>
> What do you mean you doubt? Can you or can you not provide an
emperical theory for time?
> This was your standard,

No, it is not! You introduced the term "empirical theory" into our
discussion, not me!

[snip]
> > Whatever do you mean by the phrase "theory for time?" A theory is
an
> > explanation in the form of a deductive system.
[snip]
>
> > > > 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
of
> > physics. They all use time as a variable.
>
> Not the question. They *use* time, but time is not the object of the
theory.

I don't know what you mean by the "object of the theory."

> Many
> theories use math, the all use words, but those are just for
communication and calculation
> and other intellectual processes. They have nothing to do with the
model itself. But
> let's have it your way. You say that theories are explanations. So
give me one
> empirical, testable theory which explains time.

Well, the phrase "empirical theory" is yours, not mine, at least so
far. So I'll define it now: "empirical theory" is a predictive theory
that is to be tested by the making of measurements using accepted
measuring instruments.

Ok, now I can try. First, any attempt to "explain time" is merely an
attempt to account for clock readings. Second, there are at least two
kinds of explanations: causal and difference. The former seek to
acccount for some phenomena by proffering one or more causes, which are
freely created notions. The latter seeks to "explain" why 'similar but
not exactly equal circumstances evoke different phenomena' on the basis
of those differences, no matter how insignificant they appear to the
human mind.

Now, Newton's physics does not "explain" time causally, because it
merely postulates absolute time, unless you are willing to accept a
postulate as an "explanation."

SR "explains" relative time as a manifestation of the lack of absolute
distance simultenaity. LET "explains" it as effects of absolute motion
on clocks.

>
> > > > 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!
>
> So now you also resort to addressing your comments to some mythical
audience instead of
> directly to me?

Why don't you quit crying and just admit that you were wrong for a
change.

Posters here are the biggest mythical audience of all! I write for the
record, not for you or Bilge or Weston. For all I know those are just
names for arrogant, opinionated newsgroup bots.

[snip]

> > >
> > > 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.
>
> But have any of those so called operational definitions ever been
tested? Show me one.

Tested for what? How do you test a definition?

>
> > 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?
>
> You've never demonstrated that clocks measure time.

It's the theory that claims what it observes (measures) as if by
godlike fiat. You are free to tell the theory to go to hell if you
want, but a "demonstration" is impossible!

> I could claim that rulers measure
> heat, but that doesn't make it so.

It might make it so. It's all in what you believe and are willing to
assent to in the claims of the theory. Most older thermometers I've
seen use a ruler attached to it.

> How do you know a theory is valid if you can't confirm
> that there's any validity to some of its claims?

Read the Duhem-Quine thesis, dammit! Then add faith.

> Implicit in the claim that clocks
> measure time is the claim that time is a measurable phenomenon.

It's the damn theory that DECLARES, as if by authority of GOD, what is
and what isn't "measureable"! Hell, the entire idea that something is
"measureable" is a human invention.

[snip]
>
>
> > 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.
>
> But you have not provided the most fundamental condition of all. You
have no theory which
> links the operation of a clock to the claimed phenomenon of time.

It's the operational definition that does that. Read up on it for a
damn change!

> If I measure heat with
> a thermometer, I have a theory which links the operation of that
instrument with the
> phenomenon of heat. Where is the similar theory for the functioning
of a clock?

Every theory that uses the notion of time as a measurable. (To be more
accurate, thermometers measure temperature, not heat.)

[snip]

> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
>
> Show me the theory which tells us that time is more than an illusion.
Give me an example
> of a phenomenon that is not an illusion.

Why don't you pay attention. All physical concepts are illusions. We
use these anthropomorphic illusions to build an intricate working model
that we use to predict the behavior of the world external to our
consciounesses.

I will clarify what I mean by illusion. To me, an illusion is a
misperception of reality. I don't know what reality is but I claim to
know what it isn't: It's not what we think it is. Illusions can be of
two forms: Pure mind or abnormal corruption of reality. The former is
generated internally to mind, the latter is generated externally to
mind, but gets "corrupted" according to the authority of some theory
which is used to define "normal corruption."

Now, the mind always corrupts its sensual inputs for forming its model
of the world. However, we accept that there is a "normal corruption of
reality" which we define as "standard" and that becomes the presumed
basis for understanding what other people experience as well as
ourselves. This "standard" is defined in terms of a collection of
commonly held theories. An illusion, therefore, is corruption of
preception inconsistent with the Standard corruption, and it's theory
dependent.

Patrick

Loading