One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement

[Sculptor]

Yes, but you could be wrong when you are thinking through the meaning of appearances. It is through measurement that you can be sure that your model of reality is correct.

You are just agreeing with me now.
The measurement is the appearance

The point is that you need a perfect measurement for a perfect theory.

No.
Natural Selection is a perfect theory that requires no formal measurement

[bahman]

You are just agreeing with me now.
The measurement is the appearance

The point is that you need a perfect measurement for a perfect theory.

No.
Natural Selection is a perfect theory that requires no formal measurement

Then I invite you to this thread: viewtopic.php?p=685444#p685444

Moreover, evolution is not a quantitative precise model but and qualitative one. It is like saying that particle moves if a force applies to them.

[Sculptor]

The point is that you need a perfect measurement for a perfect theory.

No.
Natural Selection is a perfect theory that requires no formal measurement

Then I invite you to this thread: viewtopic.php?p=685444#p685444

Moreover, evolution is not a quantitative precise model but and qualitative one. It is like saying that particle moves if a force applies to them.

What you say is true and refutes your OP

[bahman]

No.
Natural Selection is a perfect theory that requires no formal measurement

Then I invite you to this thread: viewtopic.php?p=685444#p685444

Moreover, evolution is not a quantitative precise model but and qualitative one. It is like saying that particle moves if a force applies to them.

What you say is true and refutes your OP

No, it does not. To make a theory, something can tell you the quantitative feature of a system, one needs a precise measurement.

[Ansiktsburk]

Bats have telepatic communication with seagulls

Whats perfect or imperfect about that theory? As a theory?

[bahman]

Bats have telepatic communication with seagulls

Whats perfect or imperfect about that theory? As a theory?

By theory, I mean something that can tell you the quantitative features of a system. What you are talking about is qualitative.

[Impenitent]

Bats have telepatic communication with seagulls

Whats perfect or imperfect about that theory? As a theory?

seagulls don't swing cricket bats

crickets don't even swing cricket bats

it's the groovy bats that swing the best

in theory anyway

-Imp

[Sculptor]

Then I invite you to this thread: viewtopic.php?p=685444#p685444

Moreover, evolution is not a quantitative precise model but and qualitative one. It is like saying that particle moves if a force applies to them.

What you say is true and refutes your OP

No, it does not. To make a theory, something can tell you the quantitative feature of a system, one needs a precise measurement.

Nope. All theories are based on experiemental results which can never be perfetly accurate. The results show tendancies.

[Age]

Please read OP.

I DID.

Now, HOW DO 'you' KNOW that 'your' OWN 'theory' here IS TRUE or CORRECT?

If 'physics' can, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT tell 'you' ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' ABOUT the 'ultimate truth' ABOUT 'reality', then, ONCE AGAIN, HOW do 'you' KNOW that 'your' OWN PERCEIVED 'ultimate truth' here, ABOUT 'reality', IS NOT Incorrect, itself?

Also, JUST SAYING, 'Please read OP', IS PROVING that 'you' ACTUALLY DO NOT KNOW and thus 'your' OWN 'theory' here COULD BE ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. Just so 'you' BECOME AWARE.

I am not talking about the theory of reality but facts, facts being that the measurements are not ultimately accurate and one cannot build an ultimate theory of reality from approximated measurements.

But, what I was talking ABOUT is that 'your' 'theory of reality', which 'you' CLAIM here ARE FACTS, MUST BE BASED FROM 'approximated measurements'.

If the Fact IS 'measurements are not ultimately accurate', then, OBVIOUSLY, the 'measurements', which 'you' USED TO ARRIVE AT 'the conclusion' here, are NOT 'ultimately accurate'.

But, OBVIOUSLY, if 'you' want to now CLAIM that 'your' CLAIM here is NOT based upon 'measurements', and if 'you' do, then 'what' IS 'your' CLAIM here based up on, EXACTLY?

Now, 'you' could SAY, 'facts'. But if 'you' do, then I will ASK 'you' what ARE 'facts' based up on, EXACTLY, if NOT 'measurements'?

[Age]

Because there will be a deviation from what the theory predicts if you wait long enough or if you perform experiments on different scales.


Yes, there is a problem if the measurement is not perfect.

So, what did 'you' USE TO 'measure' 'your' CLAIM ABOVE ON or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

COULD 'your' OWN 'measurements' or 'measuring tools' be Wrong or FAULTY? Or, is 'this' NOT A POSSIBILITY in 'your world' or FROM 'your perspective' OF 'things'?

The problem is that the theory that is made based on such a measurement is just an approximation.

So, is what 'you' CLAIMED in the opening post:

1. A theory?

2. A measurement?

3. The ultimate truth about reality?

So again, one can observe a deviation from what the theory predicts if one waits long enough or if one performs an experiment on different scales.

But 'we' have ALREADY DONE 'this' ON what 'your theory' PREDICTS. And, 'we' did NOT have to WAIT LONG AT ALL, REALLY.

The OP is telling a true statement about how a theory is linked to the experiment.

Okay. Would 'you' now like to INFORM 'us' of what this reported 'true statement' is MEASURED UPON, EXACTLY?

Now, if 'your' so-called and alleged 'true statement' is MEASURED AGAINST or UPON the 'ultimate truth about reality', AND, that 'one cannot construct a perfect theory, and/nor a 'true statement', from such a 'physical measurement', then what, EXACTLY, are 'you' BASING 'your' OWN ALLEGED 'true statement' UPON or AGAINST?

Of course, one cannot expect to find a perfect theory unless one can make the perfect experiment. Until then, the result of the experiment is just an approximation hence the theory is an approximation as well.


We can communicate well and make the argument precise enough through the discussion.

So, 'now' it IS THROUGH DISCUSSIONS that 'true statements' CAN BE REACHED, and ACHIEVED, Correct?

If yes, then WHY have 'you', ALONE, ALREADY CONCLUDED A 'true statement', BUT 'we', OBVIOUSLY, have NOT HAD A DISCUSSION, YET?

You are mixing facts with the theory of reality.

Are 'you' now here CLAIMING that 'your' opening post is A 'fact', and NOT A 'theory of reality'?

If yes, then WHERE IS the PROOF that ALL 'measurements' are NEVER PRECISE, to the last digit?

[Age]

The words are not perfect in the sense that to understand them one needs to define them in terms of other words. This leads to circularity.

Which, there IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Wrong WITH, WHEN 'the circularity' LEADS BACK TO FORMING A 'PERFECT FIT' WHERE 'the words' and 'their definitions' ARE PAINTING or ILLUSTRATING A PERFECTLY CRYSTAL CLEAR Picture of ALL-THERE-IS. Which IS, OBVIOUSLY, AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED BY ALL.

There IS NOTHING Wrong WITH 'circularity' as 'circularity' IS EXACTLY HOW the Universe WORKS, or FUNCTIONS.

We however can understand the meaning of words through examples that refer to a situation in reality.

BUT HOW could 'reality' BE REACHED, ACHIEVED, and KNOWN, when 'you' CLAIM 'you' ONLY HAVE IMPERFECT MEASUREMENTS?

We get rid of circularity this way so the language becomes meaningful and we can coherently communicate with each other and understand each other.

'you' REALLY DETEST 'circularity' and/or 'infinite regress', right "bahman"?

I am talking about language here and not measurement and the ultimate theory of reality.

Okay.

Could 'you' be USING A LANGUAGE here, which is or may NOT be PRECISE, to the last letter?

Also, what is this so-called 'theory of reality', EXACTLY?

I have heard of, and seen of, A 'Theory Of Everything' [TOE], AND, A Grand Unified Theory' [GUT], and even of A 'Grand Unified Theory Of Everything' [GUTOE], but NEVER of A so-called 'theory of reality' before.

[Age]

I disagree. I am telling you that it is raining outside and I am not lying to you. Do the information that I provided to you is inexact.

I understood that you disagreed. I am pointing out that language is inexact, so how can it, according to your argument in relation to measurement based conclusions. The whole point is that you obviously do not disagree, hence my mentioning of other threads where you speak, in very abstract language, about the ultimate truths of reality.

Language is exact, such as mathematics. Our understanding of the world is not exact because we cannot have ultimate access to reality through measurement. That is where you find inconsistency in your understanding yet there is nothing wrong with the language you employ to describe reality but the fault is in measurement.

Are the first six words here what 'you' MEANT, EXACTLY?

DESPITE the fact that it is an inexact tool. DESPITE the fact that it can lead to errors.

What error? Can you guess the ultimate theory when your data is biased with unknown things?

I don't know where it has to be biased. But the whole point is that both measurement AND language use are inexact. Yet, you clearly think one can draw conclusions via deductive work in language.

No, the language is exact. The measurement is not. The discrepancy between what you observe, the new measurement, and the old theory is not because the language that you use for the old theory is inexact but it is because the old measurement was not exact.

Do you have any objection to my other OPs? If yes, feel free to open a line of counter-arguments and show that my arguments are wrong.

Again, you are missing my point. Perhaps I agree with the conclusions in those OPs. Perhaps I don't. That is irrelevant. Those arguments drawing conclusions about ultimate reality based on language that is inexact, as ALL language is. Yet, you allow yourself to draw conclusions and make assertions about ultimate reality based on what is an inexact process: the use of language by primate brains, where the words have unclear scope and boundaries and where the very grammar of language has philosophical ideas built into it.

You argue that conclusions based on measurement because it is inexact CANNOT inform us about ultimate reality.
I point out that you regularly draw conclusions based on something else, abstract deduction in language which is also inexact. And yet you seem to trust that you can draw valid conclusions about ultimate reality.

And so far I can't see how you have even addressed the issue of the inexactness of language.

I already addressed that the language is exact in my previous comments. So I won't repeat myself.

Is there any theory that meets your criteria?

Yes, standard model for example. It suffers from anomalies that scientists call dark matter and energy.

The standard model meets your criteria for exactness???????

The mathematical language that is used for the standard model is exact. The discrepancy is because the measurement is not exact so we are dealing with a wrong model about the reality.

And it seems to me this assertion of yours is moving into areas of conclusions about ultimate reality or based on your sense of understanding ultimate reality. What tools that are completely error free did you use?

I am providing two facts: 1) The fact about the nature of measurement that cannot be error-free and 2) The fact that the theory that is based on such a measurement cannot tell us the ultimate truth about reality.

And you do this via language which is inexact. And yet inexactness is the reason measurment based conclusions cannot...you know the rest.

Language is exact. The mathematical language that is used for any physical theory is exact by this I mean that you can predict the reality to the last digit. The problem of discrepancy is because of inexact measurement which forces us to believe that the model that we used for reality is true.

I think it includes your sense of how ultimate reality works. But certainly many of your OPS ARE claiming to communicate truths about ultimate reality. The one on mind permeating throughout, for example. That's my wording and may be wrong, but you know, I would guess which thread I mean.

Please feel free to argue against other OPs in the related threads. Here I am not talking about the ultimate truth which explains what reality is.

It doesn't matter. REad the above.

My point is that you allow the use of an inexact way to draw conclusions yourself. I don't care, here, whether your conclusions are true or false in those threads. That has absolutely nothing to do with why I am bringing them up.

Please read the above.

No, you have not addressed the inexactness of language. The conclusions themselves are in inexact language. They will be analyzed by inexact verbal language in different minds with slightly different to very different interpretations in their minds.

It's as if someone answered your objection to theory based on measurement by saying 'oh, we'll measure again later and recalibrate later.'

You said

Precise enough.
Which means it is not exact but it is close enough, according to you. So an inexact set of descriptions and arguments and semantics can lead to conclusions that are close enough via discussion.

But if scientists draw a conclusion about ultimate reality based on not to the last decimal correct data, this cannot happen. CANNOT was your verb choice.

Your inexact process, it's ok, we work it out via discussion Measure based is damned. Even if there checking their results through time and in different labs can be seen as analogous to 'the discussion' and probably even more likely to be precise.

And when I bring up the inexactness of language...your counterexample is when you tell me it is raining. I think we have different ideas about what ultimate truths about the nature of reality are.

You have not addressed the radical difference in slack you allow yourself and you allow scientists (re: the inexactness of language). You haven't addressed my central argument for several posts now.

It's fine if you disagree, but at least disagree with what I write. I gotta take a pause.

I think I am clear enough right now. Language is exact. Our model of reality could be incorrect because the measurement is inexact. Please read the above for more clarification.

[Age]

But scientists believe that General Relativity is incorrect in the low gravitational field: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3 ... 357/abbb96

WHich is evidence of yet more progress.

Yes, more progress. Better measurement allows us to have a better model for the reality.

BUT, ABSOLUTELY ALL measurements can NEVER be perfect, to the last digit correct?

If yes, then 'you' could NEVER EVER arrive AT the 'model of reality', right?

if yes, then even 'this model of reality', which 'you' CLAIM here IS A 'fact', could NEVER be PERFECTLY True, Right, and Factual EXACTLY, agreed?

[Age]

Yes, more progress. Better measurement allows us to have a better model for the reality.

But you are backtracking on what you said in the OP.

Newton's theory is perfect with the area of interest. Not only does it predict the ballistic of guns which he could never have known about as they were 100s of years in his future, but his theory also described and answered the big questions of cosmology that had puzzled us for thousands of years. And at no time were his measurements any different from Tycho Brahe, Giordano Bruno and Copernicus and Kepler. What Newton did was hit on the right idea.
Much the same can be said of Einstein's relativity. His advance was not simply the result of better measurements, since no such technology was available to him. His theory predicted things that were not measurable to him.

And whatever this new thinking you mentioned means, It's not just about measurement, but thinking through the meanings of appearances.

Yes, but you could be wrong when you are thinking through the meaning of appearances. It is through measurement that you can be sure that your model of reality is correct.

But what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here now CONTRADICTS what 'you' SAID and CLAIMED IN 'your' opening post here.

Just maybe 'your' it IS 'your language', or USE of 'words' here, which has NOT been PERFECT, nor Correct?

Or is 'this' NOT A POSSIBILITY here?

[Age]

Yes, but you could be wrong when you are thinking through the meaning of appearances. It is through measurement that you can be sure that your model of reality is correct.

You are just agreeing with me now.
The measurement is the appearance

The point is that you need a perfect measurement for a perfect theory.

'Theories' ARE based upon GUESSES, PRESUMPTIONS, VISIONS, or IMAGININGS. 'Theories' are NOT based upon 'measurements' NOR 'perfect measurements' ALONE. BECAUSE if 'they' were, then 'they' would NOT be 'theories', but 'actualities', or 'facts, INSTEAD.