How close to reality can a scientific model get?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: How close to reality can a scientific model get?

Post by JSS »

"Bent", "Warped", and "Curved" are all dependent upon the definition of "straight". If I define a straight path without merely saying that it is the lack of being curved, then being curved gains meaning.

Straight Path ≡ having equal length on all bordering sides.
Curved Path ≡ having unequal length on any bordering side.

And an ontological model of reality can get perfectly accurate. But the actual measurements cannot.

Neither the Relativity model nor the Quantum model of the physical universe are comprehensively coherent models.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: How close to reality can a scientific model get?

Post by The Voice of Time »

JSS wrote:Straight Path ≡ having equal length on all bordering sides.
Curved Path ≡ having unequal length on any bordering side.
Actually, if you look at my post just prior to yours, I could further say that everything could be assumed to be curved, and that straight is just a special case arising out of you having the exact same curvature as what you are experiencing. From your viewpoint, what is ahead of you would appear to never diverge from your own path towards it, it is "straight", and this is true even though both you and the thing could both be bent like a banana relative to another person.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: How close to reality can a scientific model get?

Post by JSS »

The Voice of Time wrote:
JSS wrote:Straight Path ≡ having equal length on all bordering sides.
Curved Path ≡ having unequal length on any bordering side.
Actually, if you look at my post just prior to yours, I could further say that everything could be assumed to be curved, and that straight is just a special case arising out of you having the exact same curvature as what you are experiencing. From your viewpoint, what is ahead of you would appear to never diverge from your own path towards it, it is "straight", and this is true even though both you and the thing could both be bent like a banana relative to another person.
Except that you are not a one dimensional being. Einstein made that same mistake. Observers see from two perspectives at all times if they have but two eyes. Thus actual curves, especially directly in front, are perceived. The brain isn't as dumb as the theories it creates.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: How close to reality can a scientific model get?

Post by The Voice of Time »

JSS wrote:Except that you are not a one dimensional being. Einstein made that same mistake. Observers see from two perspectives at all times if they have but two eyes. Thus actual curves, especially directly in front, are perceived. The brain isn't as dumb as the theories it creates.
Not sure you're thinking correctly here. If YOU were curved, then anything else would be offset by your constant field of curvature because light and sound travelling to reach you would also be curved, or else they wouldn't be able to reach you (since they'd become part of you upon entering you, they would've uncurved you unless they didn't adapt upon entering). Also, all the movements you make, are also curved. You can travel west, east, north, south, inwards and outwards (presuming we're talking about spherical reality). You can reach anywhere. When perceiving things, it would feel like you're going upwards (outwards), downwards (inwards), left (west), right (east), forward (north), backwards (south, all this given that you're looking towards the north when we define directions).

Only those perceiving it from the outside would be able to tell the difference, but to you anything that happens in curved reality would be analogous to things happening in straight reality beyond the ability to differentiate. The light your two eyes would perceive, would travel with the same directions as you.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: How close to reality can a scientific model get?

Post by JSS »

The Voice of Time wrote:
JSS wrote:Except that you are not a one dimensional being. Einstein made that same mistake. Observers see from two perspectives at all times if they have but two eyes. Thus actual curves, especially directly in front, are perceived. The brain isn't as dumb as the theories it creates.
Not sure you're thinking correctly here. If YOU were curved, then anything else would be offset by your constant field of curvature because light and sound travelling to reach you would also be curved, or else they wouldn't be able to reach you (since they'd become part of you upon entering you, they would've uncurved you unless they didn't adapt upon entering).
One cannot peer at a curve from two different angles (each eye) and be affected the same way. Much like Einstein's levy and train track, two observers, or "eyes", could determine the simultaneity of the lightening strikes.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: How close to reality can a scientific model get?

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

JSS wrote:
The Voice of Time wrote:
JSS wrote:Except that you are not a one dimensional being. Einstein made that same mistake. Observers see from two perspectives at all times if they have but two eyes. Thus actual curves, especially directly in front, are perceived. The brain isn't as dumb as the theories it creates.
Not sure you're thinking correctly here. If YOU were curved, then anything else would be offset by your constant field of curvature because light and sound travelling to reach you would also be curved, or else they wouldn't be able to reach you (since they'd become part of you upon entering you, they would've uncurved you unless they didn't adapt upon entering).
One cannot peer at a curve from two different angles (each eye) and be affected the same way. Much like Einstein's levy and train track, two observers, or "eyes", could determine the simultaneity of the lightening strikes.
There may be a way to adjust for this effect.

PhilX
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: How close to reality can a scientific model get?

Post by The Voice of Time »

JSS wrote:One cannot peer at a curve from two different angles (each eye) and be affected the same way.
So what? I don't see a problem with this.
Dubious
Posts: 2531
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: How close to reality can a scientific model get?

Post by Dubious »

...in it's most flawless instance, just prior to being the reality.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: How close to reality can a scientific model get?

Post by JSS »

The Voice of Time wrote:
JSS wrote:One cannot peer at a curve from two different angles (each eye) and be affected the same way.
So what? I don't see a problem with this.
The "problem" is that Einstein's proposal and the general concept of relativity is that because one cannot detect an absolute truth, subjective truth (aka "lie") is the only standard. It takes more than one perspective to detect an absolute truth. So very narrow, single minded, and closed off judges of others will invariably be objectively wrong in their judgements. Subjectivity creates conflicts in society and in ontological models of reality.
Post Reply