Re: Incommensurability of Mathematical Logic and Scientific Logic

AllYou! wrote: 

"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:QZ1cf.1561$om5.113@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

AllYou! wrote:


"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ltJbf.35$om5.18@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

AllYou! wrote:


"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:BdJbf.33$om5.24@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

AllYou! wrote:


"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:T13bf.2623$ii.76@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

AllYou! wrote:



jem:
"Your problem is you don't know where the dividing line is between map
and territory. Planets are elements of a model, and the logical rules
that govern their behavior within models can certainly be considered to
cause that behavior.

"Creating the rules is what's meant by building the model."


Rules, which you've claimed were created (i.e., buliding models) by man, cannot cause anything.


I've been through this with you so many times that there's hardly any point in doing it again, but OK, give me an example of something that you think is caused by something else (stay in the Physics arena).




The issue isn't what I believe might be a cause of something or other..........but rather, it's that contrary to your claim, inventions of the mind cannot cause a thing.



Forget it. 



OK, but here's a concept that might be tangentially interesting to you.

Each of us has a perception of that which affects us (i.e., stimulates our senses). We might be dreaming, hypnotized, mad, intellectually advanced, etc.....but when our brains tell us that our senses have been stimulated, all we can do is take that at face value, and compare it to all other stimuli we've ever received in order to test its consistency with what we've come to learn from all of it.

Now, because we've come to know that there are ways in which our perceptions can be proven to be terribly inconsistent with the sum total of our other perceptions, the more sophisticated of us have determined that a science which requires the precision of physics is no place to cling to the notion that we can be certain that any given stimulus was absolute and true. All we have are varying degrees of probability that they may be true.

As a result of that imprecision which has infected our perceptions, each of us builds his own model of what we hope might be a reflection of what is absolute and true. We've decided that if a stimulus is highly consistent with our expectations which were based upon the sum total of all of our other stimuli, that there's a high probability that it relates to reality in some way, if there is one. However, most of us will not be fooled by this, and are still only willing to go as far as to claim that we have a reliable model, and not know anything of reality.

So each of us has this giant model, parts of which are highly reliable, and other parts of which are almost totally unreliable, but it's the best we have to date. So each of us keeps observing, and adds those observations to the model. And so it not only becomes more reliable, but it also grows. Most of us also add what we perceive others tell us about their models to our own. I don't have any first hand knowledge of what happened on the moon when Armstrong was there, or even know for a fact that he was there, or even know for a fact that there's an Armstrong, but based upon all of my other observations and the beliefs which spring from them, I've decided to accept those perceptions as well in that I've added what I perceive they've told me to my model.

Once in a while, I compare portions of my model to that of other models, and through what I perceive to be logical discussions, I may very well adjust my model.

So of what does my model consist? It consists of the rules I've created based upon all of my perceptions of what I've observed (including what I've learned from others). But make no mistake, I've created those rules in order to make sense of all of those perceptions. Those rules are the result of perceptions. The perceptions are not affected by the rules.......it's the rules that are affected by the perceptions.

Any questions?


No.


You're not a bad student after all. Glad to see I could help you out with this. 

The problem never was *my* lack of understanding of what *you* were saying.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Incommensurability of Mathematical Logic and Scientific Logic
    ... Planets are elements of a model, and the logical rules ... Now, because we've come to know that there are ways in which our perceptions can be proven to be terribly inconsistent with the sum total of our other perceptions, the more sophisticated of us have determined that a science which requires the precision of physics is no place to cling to the notion that we can be certain that any given stimulus was absolute and true. ... We've decided that if a stimulus is highly consistent with our expectations which were based upon the sum total of all of our other stimuli, that there's a high probability that it relates to reality in some way, if there is one. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Incommensurability of Mathematical Logic and Scientific Logic
    ... Planets are elements of a model, and the logical rules that govern their behavior within models can certainly be considered to cause that behavior. ... Now, because we've come to know that there are ways in which our perceptions can be proven to be terribly inconsistent with the sum total of our other perceptions, the more sophisticated of us have determined that a science which requires the precision of physics is no place to cling to the notion that we can be certain that any given stimulus was absolute and true. ... We've decided that if a stimulus is highly consistent with our expectations which were based upon the sum total of all of our other stimuli, that there's a high probability that it relates to reality in some way, if there is one. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Incommensurability of Mathematical Logic and Scientific Logic
    ... Planets are elements of a model, and the logical rules ... Now, because we've come to know that there are ways in which our perceptions can be proven to be terribly inconsistent with the sum total of our other perceptions, the more sophisticated of us have determined that a science which requires the precision of physics is no place to cling to the notion that we can be certain that any given stimulus was absolute and true. ... We've decided that if a stimulus is highly consistent with our expectations which were based upon the sum total of all of our other stimuli, that there's a high probability that it relates to reality in some way, if there is one. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Sample of my SR model"s interpretation
    ... perceptual reality acts like a 3-D hyperplane screen, ... It is no wonder that perceptions made by such ... traveling twin makes his journey, ... The ship's front end is seen by a stationary observer to have ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sample of my SR model"s interpretation
    ... > perceptual reality acts like a 3-D hyperplane screen, ... It is no wonder that perceptions made by such ... > conditions that hold for the traveling twin, ... to see what is `really' going on with the moving brother. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)