No.
Natural Selection is a perfect theory that requires no formal measurement
No.
Then I invite you to this thread: viewtopic.php?p=685444#p685444
What you say is true and refutes your OPbahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:49 amThen 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.
No, it does not. To make a theory, something can tell you the quantitative feature of a system, one needs a precise measurement.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:07 pmWhat you say is true and refutes your OPbahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:49 amThen 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.
By theory, I mean something that can tell you the quantitative features of a system. What you are talking about is qualitative.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:21 pm Bats have telepatic communication with seagulls
Whats perfect or imperfect about that theory? As a theory?
seagulls don't swing cricket batsAnsiktsburk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:21 pm Bats have telepatic communication with seagulls
Whats perfect or imperfect about that theory? As a theory?
Nope. All theories are based on experiemental results which can never be perfetly accurate. The results show tendancies.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:11 pmNo, it does not. To make a theory, something can tell you the quantitative feature of a system, one needs a precise measurement.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:07 pmWhat you say is true and refutes your OPbahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:49 am
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.
But, what I was talking ABOUT is that 'your' 'theory of reality', which 'you' CLAIM here ARE FACTS, MUST BE BASED FROM 'approximated measurements'.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 1:46 pmI 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.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 2:03 amI 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.
Are 'you' now here CLAIMING that 'your' opening post is A 'fact', and NOT A 'theory of reality'?bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 1:49 pmYou are mixing facts with the theory of reality.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 2:30 amSo, 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'?So, is what 'you' CLAIMED in the opening post:
1. A theory?
2. A measurement?
3. The ultimate truth about reality?But 'we' have ALREADY DONE 'this' ON what 'your theory' PREDICTS. And, 'we' did NOT have to WAIT LONG AT ALL, REALLY.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?
So, 'now' it IS THROUGH DISCUSSIONS that 'true statements' CAN BE REACHED, and ACHIEVED, Correct?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 12:25 pm 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.
If yes, then WHY have 'you', ALONE, ALREADY CONCLUDED A 'true statement', BUT 'we', OBVIOUSLY, have NOT HAD A DISCUSSION, YET?
Okay.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 1:51 pmI am talking about language here and not measurement and the ultimate theory of reality.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 2:36 amWhich, 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.BUT HOW could 'reality' BE REACHED, ACHIEVED, and KNOWN, when 'you' CLAIM 'you' ONLY HAVE IMPERFECT MEASUREMENTS?'you' REALLY DETEST 'circularity' and/or 'infinite regress', right "bahman"?
Are the first six words here what 'you' MEANT, EXACTLY?bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 3:04 pmLanguage 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.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 2:11 pmI 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.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 3:04 pmNo, 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.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pmIwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pm
DESPITE the fact that it is an inexact tool. DESPITE the fact that it can lead to errors.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.What error? Can you guess the ultimate theory when your data is biased with unknown things?
I already addressed that the language is exact in my previous comments. So I won't repeat myself.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 4:47 pmAgain, 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.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.
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.
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.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pmThe standard model meets your criteria for exactness???????
Yes, standard model for example. It suffers from anomalies that scientists call dark matter and energy.
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.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pmIwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pm 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?And you do this via language which is inexact. And yet inexactness is the reason measurment based conclusions cannot...you know the rest.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.
Please read the above.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pmIwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pm
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.It doesn't matter. REad the above.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.
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.
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.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pm 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.
BUT, ABSOLUTELY ALL measurements can NEVER be perfect, to the last digit correct?bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 3:06 pmYes, more progress. Better measurement allows us to have a better model for the reality.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 2:41 pmWHich is evidence of yet more progress.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 1:43 pm
But scientists believe that General Relativity is incorrect in the low gravitational field: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3 ... 357/abbb96
But what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here now CONTRADICTS what 'you' SAID and CLAIMED IN 'your' opening post here.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 3:25 pmYes, 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.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 3:09 pmBut 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.
'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.