One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement

[bahman]

We know that physical measurements are not perfect in the sense that they are not precise to the last digit. Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement.

[Impenitent]

Protagoras returns

-Imp

[bahman]

Protagoras returns

-Imp

Yes, physics is useful but it cannot tell anything about the ultimate truth about reality.

[Iwannaplato]

We know that physical measurements are not perfect in the sense that they are not precise to the last digit. Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement.

Words are not perfect. Their scope and meaning are not perfect. Sentences (grammar) is not perfect. They elicit experiences that are not exactly the same in different brains. Therefore, bahman's argument is not perfect.

[bahman]

We know that physical measurements are not perfect in the sense that they are not precise to the last digit. Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement.

Words are not perfect. Their scope and meaning are not perfect. Sentences (grammar) is not perfect. They elicit experiences that are not exactly the same in different brains. Therefore, bahman's argument is not perfect.

My argument is valid.

[Dontaskme]

We know that physical measurements are not perfect in the sense that they are not precise to the last digit. Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement.

Tape measures and rulers know nothing of reality.

[Iwannaplato]

We know that physical measurements are not perfect in the sense that they are not precise to the last digit. Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement.

Words are not perfect. Their scope and meaning are not perfect. Sentences (grammar) is not perfect. They elicit experiences that are not exactly the same in different brains. Therefore, bahman's argument is not perfect.

My argument is valid.

OK, if you don't want to interact with what I wrote, don't. If you're satisfied essentially repeating yourself. Fine.

[Age]

Protagoras returns

-Imp

Yes, physics is useful but it cannot tell anything about the ultimate truth about reality.

How do you, supposedly, KNOW?

How is it that you KNOW that there is a so-called 'ultimate truth about reality', and, that so-called 'physics' can NOT tell you absolutely ANY 'thing' about 'that reality'?

How did you find out about 'this alleged reality' and have that current knowledge ABOUT 'it' if 'physics' did NOT tell you absolutely ANY 'thing' ABOUT 'it'?

[bahman]

We know that physical measurements are not perfect in the sense that they are not precise to the last digit. Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement.

Tape measures and rulers know nothing of reality.

What?

[bahman]

Words are not perfect. Their scope and meaning are not perfect. Sentences (grammar) is not perfect. They elicit experiences that are not exactly the same in different brains. Therefore, bahman's argument is not perfect.

My argument is valid.

OK, if you don't want to interact with what I wrote, don't. If you're satisfied essentially repeating yourself. Fine.

What do you think is wrong with my argument?

[bahman]

Protagoras returns

-Imp

Yes, physics is useful but it cannot tell anything about the ultimate truth about reality.

How do you, supposedly, KNOW?

How is it that you KNOW that there is a so-called 'ultimate truth about reality', and, that so-called 'physics' can NOT tell you absolutely ANY 'thing' about 'that reality'?

How did you find out about 'this alleged reality' and have that current knowledge ABOUT 'it' if 'physics' did NOT tell you absolutely ANY 'thing' ABOUT 'it'?

Please read OP.

[Iwannaplato]

My argument is valid.

OK, if you don't want to interact with what I wrote, don't. If you're satisfied essentially repeating yourself. Fine.

What do you think is wrong with my argument?

Well one issue I was raising was 'Why does a theory have to be perfect?" I raised that obliquely, so I get that that might have been missed. Now I've made it explicit. But if measurements not being utterly perfect is a problem and rules out
telling

anything about the ultimate truth about reality.

then either the OP is not telling us anything about the ultimate truth about reality
or the OP is wrong.
Language is not utterly precise and yet it seems that you frequently tell us your sense of the ultimate truth about reality. See, my previous post for why I think language is not utterly precise, perhaps especially at the abstract level of much of your positions as presented here.

So, how can they manage to tell us anything about the ultimate truth about reality?

[bahman]

OK, if you don't want to interact with what I wrote, don't. If you're satisfied essentially repeating yourself. Fine.

What do you think is wrong with my argument?

Well one issue I was raising was 'Why does a theory have to be perfect?"

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

I raised that obliquely, so I get that that might have been missed. Now I've made it explicit. But if measurements not being utterly perfect is a problem and rules out telling

anything about the ultimate truth about reality.

Yes, there is a problem if the measurement is not perfect. The problem is that the theory that is made based on such a measurement is just an approximation. 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.

then either the OP is not telling us anything about the ultimate truth about reality or the OP is wrong.

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

Language is not utterly precise and yet it seems that you frequently tell us your sense of the ultimate truth about reality.

See, my previous post for why I think language is not utterly precise, perhaps especially at the abstract level of much of your positions as presented here.

So, how can they manage to tell us anything about the ultimate truth about reality?

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

[Walker]

Protagoras returns

-Imp

Yes, physics is useful but it cannot tell anything about the ultimate truth about reality.

Would you say that the thread title is true because ultimate truth about reality applies to all situations, while physics (and this sentence) applies to a specific situation rather than all situations.

[bahman]

Protagoras returns

-Imp

Yes, physics is useful but it cannot tell anything about the ultimate truth about reality.

Would you say that the thread title is true because ultimate truth about reality applies to all situations, while physics (and this sentence) applies to a specific situation rather than all situations.

Yes.