One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
Well, then I understood it, so I suppose language is indeed useful for communicating.
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
This means that even though words are not "perfect," they need not be for effective (perfect?) measurement of meaning via language.
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
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. We however can understand the meaning of words through examples that refer to a situation in reality. We get rid of circularity this way so the language becomes meaningful and we can coherently communicate with each other and understand each other.
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
To me rare errors in prediction do not mean a theory is still capable of telling us about the ultimate truth of reality, just as
the floppy boundaries of words and the misimplications of grammar don't rule out language conveying truths, even deep ones. But if a theory has be be perfect and never mislead than there is problem with many of your OPs. They too will likely lead to mistakes, given the qualities of language and brains,etc.
There's a difference, to me, between something that leads to errors, some time in the future, and saying that therefore it cannot tell us ANYTHING about the ultimate truth of reality. And language is at least as floppy as measurement in, for example,, scientific theory applications.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.
Well, then none of your pronouncements have been telling us ANYTHING about the ultimate nature of reality because they are not using a perfect language.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.
So, there will never be errors due to the problems of the inexactness of language. Scientiists can measure again and have occasional errors. Just as communication can successfully convey core ideas, despite vagueness around semantics and the not quite intended misleading subtext in grammar.We can communicate well and make the argument precise enough through the discussion.
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
It means. There are error bars in any experiment. This means one can fit several theories within the range of error bars. Which one is true? How could we know unless we have an experiment with zero error bars?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 4:47 pmTo me rare errors in prediction do not mean a theory is still capable of telling us about the ultimate truth of reality,
Language is a tool that we use to convey our understanding of a subject to another person. Physical theory is explained in mathematical language though. We have the same understanding of physical theory, therefore. But that does not mean that physical theory is perfect, perfect in the sense that it can exactly explain reality as it is.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 4:47 pm just as the floppy boundaries of words and the misimplications of grammar don't rule out language conveying truths, even deep ones.
I am afraid that that does not follow. You have a good understanding of what I am saying. That means I can successfully explain the idea I have in my mind. You are wrongly generalizing an idea claiming that if a theory has to be perfect to explain reality well and there is no perfect theory to the best of our knowledge then what I am arguing as well is not perfect. Here, I am not given a theory that explains reality but I am arguing the limitation of our understanding of reality using a theory that is based on approximated experiment.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 4:47 pm But if a theory has be be perfect and never mislead than there is problem with many of your OPs. They too will likely lead to mistakes, given the qualities of language and brains,etc.
That is only the ultimate theory that is error-free. Any other theory is just an approximation of the reality. It only tells us something in the range that theory is valid otherwise we face an anomaly here and there.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 4:47 pmThere's a difference, to me, between something that leads to errors, some time in the future, and saying that therefore it cannot tell us ANYTHING about the ultimate truth of reality. And language is at least as floppy as measurement in, for example,, scientific theory applications.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.
I am not arguing about the ultimate nature of reality here. I am simply arguing that any physical theory is linked to an experiment. The physical theory is an approximation if the experiment is an approximation.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 4:47 pmWell, then none of your pronouncements have been telling us ANYTHING about the ultimate nature of reality because they are not using a perfect language.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.
You are mixing things here again. I argue against it in my former comments so I don't repeat myself.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 4:47 pmSo, there will never be errors due to the problems of the inexactness of language. Scientiists can measure again and have occasional errors. Just as communication can successfully convey core ideas, despite vagueness around semantics and the not quite intended misleading subtext in grammar.We can communicate well and make the argument precise enough through the discussion.
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
No measurment can be perfect. At some point the ruler has to chose between one molecure or another; has to contend with micro changes in magnitude due to thermal expansion, time dilation and so forth.
Nonetheless all theories have been constructe upon such measurments. They are understood to work because multiple exanples, though they dance around the predicted result, they eventually reach the mean.
Throw a pair of dice muliple times and the results tend to average 7, in a predictable curve.
Object of different sizes and weight will tend to accelerate at 9.8mss at sea level. This is unvarying, and forms the basis of Newton's gravitation equations.
This is how we have come to understand the world.
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
No, for that you need the knowledge of the last digit in the measurement. Moreover, you are dealing with error bars in any measurement and it becomes harder to get rid of error bars when you are trying to correct lower digits.
9.8!? How about the rest of the digits? There are quantum correction, general relativity correction, and finally the dark matter correction. Who knows what to expect if you include all corrections?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 7:08 pm At some point the ruler has to chose between one molecure or another; has to contend with micro changes in magnitude due to thermal expansion, time dilation and so forth.
Nonetheless all theories have been constructe upon such measurments. They are understood to work because multiple exanples, though they dance around the predicted result, they eventually reach the mean.
Throw a pair of dice muliple times and the results tend to average 7, in a predictable curve.
Object of different sizes and weight will tend to accelerate at 9.8mss at sea level. This is unvarying, and forms the basis of Newton's gravitation equations.
And our understanding of the world is incomplete. We don't have a theory of everything yet. The standard model is not anomaly-free.
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
double post
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
So, you think we don't know anything through experiments that include measurements?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 4:47 pm just as the floppy boundaries of words and the misimplications of grammar don't rule out language conveying truths, even deep ones.
Language is an inexact tool with inexact semantics, for example. Though I suppose I've said this before. In any case, deduction depends on language and language is inexact.Language is a tool that we use to convey our understanding of a subject to another person. Physical theory is explained in mathematical language though. We have the same understanding of physical theory, therefore. But that does not mean that physical theory is perfect, perfect in the sense that it can exactly explain reality as it is.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 4:47 pm But if a theory has be be perfect and never mislead than there is problem with many of your OPs. They too will likely lead to mistakes, given the qualities of language and brains,etc.
DESPITE the fact that it is an inexact tool. DESPITE the fact that it can lead to errors.I am afraid that that does not follow. You have a good understanding of what I am saying. That means I can successfully explain the idea I have in my mind.
Which is precisely why I referred ALSO to many of your OPs which ARE attempts to convey deep and ultimate truths about society.You are wrongly generalizing an idea claiming that if a theory has to be perfect to explain reality well and there is no perfect theory to the best of our knowledge then what I am arguing as well is not perfect. Here, I am not given a theory that explains reality but I am arguing the limitation of our understanding of reality using a theory that is based on approximated experiment.
Is there any theory that meets your criteria?That is only the ultimate theory that is error-free. Any other theory is just an approximation of the reality. It only tells us something in the range that theory is valid otherwise we face an anomaly here and there.
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 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.I am not arguing about the ultimate nature of reality here. I am simply arguing that any physical theory is linked to an experiment. The physical theory is an approximation if the experiment is an approximation.
With me you asserted...
That doesn't explain how language avoids inexactness which is your complaint against measurement. The above comments in this post don't explain why you think inexact language works when you, in other threads, are conveying truths about ultimate reality. And I did mention other threads earlier.We can communicate well and make the argument precise enough through the discussion.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
I am talking about fact. No measurement is involved in my argument. My argument is plain and simple. One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement. Could you do that? How could you do that when the result of the measurement is subject to change?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 8:55 pmWith me you asserted...That doesn't explain how language avoids inexactness which is your complaint against measurement.We can communicate well and make the argument precise enough through the discussion.
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
9.8.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 8:46 pmNo, for that you need the knowledge of the last digit in the measurement. Moreover, you are dealing with error bars in any measurement and it becomes harder to get rid of error bars when you are trying to correct lower digits.
9.8!? How about the rest of the digits? There are quantum correction, general relativity correction, and finally the dark matter correction. Who knows what to expect if you include all corrections?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 7:08 pm At some point the ruler has to chose between one molecure or another; has to contend with micro changes in magnitude due to thermal expansion, time dilation and so forth.
Nonetheless all theories have been constructe upon such measurments. They are understood to work because multiple exanples, though they dance around the predicted result, they eventually reach the mean.
Throw a pair of dice muliple times and the results tend to average 7, in a predictable curve.
Object of different sizes and weight will tend to accelerate at 9.8mss at sea level. This is unvarying, and forms the basis of Newton's gravitation equations.
And our understanding of the world is incomplete. We don't have a theory of everything yet. The standard model is not anomaly-free.
Is good enough was the point I was making.
Air resitence and wind speed also have an effect that would alter the measurement.
But the with the theory the exaclt number is known from the mass of the earth. Which, again, cannot easily be measured accuratelt.
Yet this is no bar to understanding the theory.
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
I didn't say so. We can say something about reality that is held correct in the regime that measurement is valid. All I am saying is that we cannot say something about reality which is correct in the regime that measurement is not valid.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pmSo, you think we don't know anything through experiments that include measurements?
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.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pmIwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 4:47 pm just as the floppy boundaries of words and the misimplications of grammar don't rule out language conveying truths, even deep ones.Language is an inexact tool with inexact semantics, for example. Though I suppose I've said this before. In any case, deduction depends on language and language is inexact.Language is a tool that we use to convey our understanding of a subject to another person. Physical theory is explained in mathematical language though. We have the same understanding of physical theory, therefore. But that does not mean that physical theory is perfect, perfect in the sense that it can exactly explain reality as it is.
What error? Can you guess the ultimate theory when your data is biased with unknown things?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pmIwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 4:47 pm But if a theory has be be perfect and never mislead than there is problem with many of your OPs. They too will likely lead to mistakes, given the qualities of language and brains,etc.DESPITE the fact that it is an inexact tool. DESPITE the fact that it can lead to errors.I am afraid that that does not follow. You have a good understanding of what I am saying. That means I can successfully explain the idea I have in my mind.
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.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pmWhich is precisely why I referred ALSO to many of your OPs which ARE attempts to convey deep and ultimate truths about society.You are wrongly generalizing an idea claiming that if a theory has to be perfect to explain reality well and there is no perfect theory to the best of our knowledge then what I am arguing as well is not perfect. Here, I am not given a theory that explains reality but I am arguing the limitation of our understanding of reality using a theory that is based on approximated experiment.
Yes, standard model for example. It suffers from anomalies that scientists call dark matter and energy.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pmIs there any theory that meets your criteria?That is only the ultimate theory that is error-free. Any other theory is just an approximation of the reality. It only tells us something in the range that theory is valid otherwise we face an anomaly here and there.
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.Iwannaplato 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?
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.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pmI 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.I am not arguing about the ultimate nature of reality here. I am simply arguing that any physical theory is linked to an experiment. The physical theory is an approximation if the experiment is an approximation.
I already addressed this in my former comment so I won't repeat myself.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pmWith me you asserted...That doesn't explain how language avoids inexactness which is your complaint against measurement. The above comments in this post don't explain why you think inexact language works when you, in other threads, are conveying truths about ultimate reality. And I did mention other threads earlier.We can communicate well and make the argument precise enough through the discussion.
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
9.8 is not good enough. Our understanding of reality changes as we improve our measurement. As I mentioned other corrections come into play and we don't know what to expect if we make a more precise experiment.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:21 pm9.8.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 8:46 pmNo, for that you need the knowledge of the last digit in the measurement. Moreover, you are dealing with error bars in any measurement and it becomes harder to get rid of error bars when you are trying to correct lower digits.
9.8!? How about the rest of the digits? There are quantum correction, general relativity correction, and finally the dark matter correction. Who knows what to expect if you include all corrections?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 7:08 pm At some point the ruler has to chose between one molecure or another; has to contend with micro changes in magnitude due to thermal expansion, time dilation and so forth.
Nonetheless all theories have been constructe upon such measurments. They are understood to work because multiple exanples, though they dance around the predicted result, they eventually reach the mean.
Throw a pair of dice muliple times and the results tend to average 7, in a predictable curve.
Object of different sizes and weight will tend to accelerate at 9.8mss at sea level. This is unvarying, and forms the basis of Newton's gravitation equations.
And our understanding of the world is incomplete. We don't have a theory of everything yet. The standard model is not anomaly-free.
Is good enough was the point I was making.
Air resitence and wind speed also have an effect that would alter the measurement.
But the with the theory the exaclt number is known from the mass of the earth. Which, again, cannot easily be measured accuratelt.
Yet this is no bar to understanding the theory.
Re: One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement
It's plenty good enough. Einstein was able to refine the theory from that.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:40 pm9.8 is not good enough. Our understanding of reality changes as we improve our measurement. As I mentioned other corrections come into play and we don't know what to expect if we make a more precise experiment.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:21 pm9.8.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 8:46 pm
No, for that you need the knowledge of the last digit in the measurement. Moreover, you are dealing with error bars in any measurement and it becomes harder to get rid of error bars when you are trying to correct lower digits.
9.8!? How about the rest of the digits? There are quantum correction, general relativity correction, and finally the dark matter correction. Who knows what to expect if you include all corrections?
And our understanding of the world is incomplete. We don't have a theory of everything yet. The standard model is not anomaly-free.
Is good enough was the point I was making.
Air resitence and wind speed also have an effect that would alter the measurement.
But the with the theory the exaclt number is known from the mass of the earth. Which, again, cannot easily be measured accuratelt.
Yet this is no bar to understanding the theory.
With the theory of gravity we got a probe to the ends of the solar system and a man on the Moon.