One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement

[Age]

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.

WELL, IF 'you' had INFORMED 'the readers' of 'your' OWN VERY SELECTIVE, VERY NARROWED, and VERY SPECIFIC DEFINITION of the 'theory' word, THEN 'you' would NOT HAVE CAUSED SO MUCH CONFUSION and COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY DISCUSSION.

It would be 'you' SAYING and/or CLAIMING here that;

'God exists', OR, 'God does NOT exist', without EVER ACTUALLY EXPLAINING what 'God', TO 'you', IS, EXACTLY.

So, what 'you' ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING and CLAIMING now IS;

One can NOT make A so-called 'perfect theory' of the quantitative, or of the numbered, features of a system, ONLY, when 'that one' does NOT ALREADY HAVE THE EXACT 'number/quantitative', to the last digit, ALREADY, or PRIOR.

[bahman]

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.

So you agree with me!?

[bahman]

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?

I am talking about facts about reality and not a theory of reality.

[Sculptor]

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.

So you agree with me!?

Go almighty NO.
You are seriously confused.
DO I need to remind you what you actually said??
Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement.
All empirically based theories have been discovered with results that are not perfectly accurate. But the theories WORK. The theories are perfect.

[bahman]

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

So you agree with me!?

Go almighty NO.
You are seriously confused.
DO I need to remind you what you actually said??
Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement.
All empirically based theories have been discovered with results that are not perfectly accurate. But the theories WORK. The theories are perfect.

Theories work only within valid regimes.

[Sculptor]

So you agree with me!?

Go almighty NO.
You are seriously confused.
DO I need to remind you what you actually said??
Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement.
All empirically based theories have been discovered with results that are not perfectly accurate. But the theories WORK. The theories are perfect.

Theories work only within valid regimes.

That is not the same thing as "Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement."

SHM has never had an accurate mesurement, yet has worked perfectly since the time of Robert Hooke
. It has led to more discoveries and confirmed gravity.

[bahman]

Go almighty NO.
You are seriously confused.
DO I need to remind you what you actually said??
Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement.
All empirically based theories have been discovered with results that are not perfectly accurate. But the theories WORK. The theories are perfect.

Theories work only within valid regimes.

That is not the same thing as "Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement."

It is the same. By valid regime, I mean a specific range of precision. You can even observe quantum effects in falling objects if you make precise measurements.

[Iwannaplato]

Theories work only within valid regimes.

That is not the same thing as "Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement."

It is the same. By valid regime, I mean a specific range of precision. You can even observe quantum effects in falling objects if you make precise measurements.

So, despite the fact that we cannot measure perfectly, utterly error free, you believe the theory (or theories) about quantum effects in falling objects.

[bahman]

That is not the same thing as "Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement."

It is the same. By valid regime, I mean a specific range of precision. You can even observe quantum effects in falling objects if you make precise measurements.

So, despite the fact that we cannot measure perfectly, utterly error free, you believe the theory (or theories) about quantum effects in falling objects.

Sure, maybe there are other theories beyond quantum theory that one has to take into account depending on the precision of measurement.

[Iwannaplato]

It is the same. By valid regime, I mean a specific range of precision. You can even observe quantum effects in falling objects if you make precise measurements.

So, despite the fact that we cannot measure perfectly, utterly error free, you believe the theory (or theories) about quantum effects in falling objects.

Sure, maybe there are other theories beyond quantum theory that one has to take into account depending on the precision of measurement.

I don't think I said that. It just seemed like we couldn't draw conclusions from processes with imperfect measurement. Well, that's always an issue. Yet, it seemed like you drew conclusions. Or, perhaps, you think they have nothing to do with ultimate reality.

[bahman]

So, despite the fact that we cannot measure perfectly, utterly error free, you believe the theory (or theories) about quantum effects in falling objects.

Sure, maybe there are other theories beyond quantum theory that one has to take into account depending on the precision of measurement.

I don't think I said that. It just seemed like we couldn't draw conclusions from processes with imperfect measurement. Well, that's always an issue. Yet, it seemed like you drew conclusions. Or, perhaps, you think they have nothing to do with ultimate reality.

Physical theory cannot explain the ultimate reality but can explain general features of reality in the regime they are valid.

[Iwannaplato]

Sure, maybe there are other theories beyond quantum theory that one has to take into account depending on the precision of measurement.

I don't think I said that. It just seemed like we couldn't draw conclusions from processes with imperfect measurement. Well, that's always an issue. Yet, it seemed like you drew conclusions. Or, perhaps, you think they have nothing to do with ultimate reality.

Physical theory cannot explain the ultimate reality but can explain general features of reality in the regime they are valid.

If it could measure perfectly could it describe ultimate reality? IOW is the only problem with physical theory that we can't measure perfectly, or is the problem (also) that it really isn't focused on the ultimate level?

[bahman]

I don't think I said that. It just seemed like we couldn't draw conclusions from processes with imperfect measurement. Well, that's always an issue. Yet, it seemed like you drew conclusions. Or, perhaps, you think they have nothing to do with ultimate reality.

Physical theory cannot explain the ultimate reality but can explain general features of reality in the regime they are valid.

If it could measure perfectly could it describe ultimate reality?

Sure. That measurement describes reality well. Making a theory that fits the measurement is another hassle.

IOW is the only problem with physical theory that we can't measure perfectly, or is the problem (also) that it really isn't focused on the ultimate level?

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

[Iwannaplato]

Physical theory cannot explain the ultimate reality but can explain general features of reality in the regime they are valid.

If it could measure perfectly could it describe ultimate reality?

Sure. That measurement describes reality well. Making a theory that fits the measurement is another hassle.

IOW is the only problem with physical theory that we can't measure perfectly, or is the problem (also) that it really isn't focused on the ultimate level?

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

You raised the issue - now in my words - that measuring is approximate. There can always be error (somewhere out in the decimal places) but also we don't/can't chase the decimal places in a measurement all the way out. (unless, perhaps, the universe is quantized, where there is a minimum length, but that's another topics). So, measurements are fallible, hence, you argued, if I understood correctly, any theory based on measurement cannot be perfect.

But above I was getting a different, perhaps incorrect impression, that the very working with the physical could not produce perfect theory about ultimate reality. Not merely because of measurement being inexact, but.....

And I'm not sure. But it seemed like it was the wrong category for getting at ultimate truths. Perhaps something in relation to induction vs. deduction or physics vs. metaphysics. Not that you said all this explicitly or any of it, but it was my impression

[bahman]

If it could measure perfectly could it describe ultimate reality?

Sure. That measurement describes reality well. Making a theory that fits the measurement is another hassle.

IOW is the only problem with physical theory that we can't measure perfectly, or is the problem (also) that it really isn't focused on the ultimate level?

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

You raised the issue - now in my words - that measuring is approximate. There can always be error (somewhere out in the decimal places) but also we don't/can't chase the decimal places in a measurement all the way out. (unless, perhaps, the universe is quantized, where there is a minimum length, but that's another topics). So, measurements are fallible, hence, you argued, if I understood correctly, any theory based on measurement cannot be perfect.

Correct. That is what I mean.

But above I was getting a different, perhaps incorrect impression, that the very working with the physical could not produce perfect theory about ultimate reality. Not merely because of measurement being inexact, but.....

I think it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to produce a theory that is perfect given perfect measurement.

And I'm not sure. But it seemed like it was the wrong category for getting at ultimate truths. Perhaps something in relation to induction vs. deduction or physics vs. metaphysics. Not that you said all this explicitly or any of it, but it was my impression

Sure, we are talking metaphysics here rather than physics.