One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement

[Walker]

Well, then I understood it, so I suppose language is indeed useful for communicating.

[bahman]

Well, then I understood it, so I suppose language is indeed useful for communicating.

Sure it is.

[Walker]

This means that even though words are not "perfect," they need not be for effective (perfect?) measurement of meaning via language.

[bahman]

This means that even though words are not "perfect," they need not be for effective (perfect?) measurement of meaning via language.

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.

[Iwannaplato]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[bahman]

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

To me rare errors in prediction do not mean a theory is still capable of telling us about the ultimate truth of reality,

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?

just as the floppy boundaries of words and the misimplications of grammar don't rule out language conveying truths, even deep ones.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

You are mixing things here again. I argue against it in my former comments so I don't repeat myself.

[Sculptor]

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.

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.

[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.

No measurment can be perfect.

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.

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.

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?

This is how we have come to understand the world.

And our understanding of the world is incomplete. We don't have a theory of everything yet. The standard model is not anomaly-free.

[Iwannaplato]

double post

[Iwannaplato]

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?

So, you think we don't know anything through experiments that include measurements?

just as the floppy boundaries of words and the misimplications of grammar don't rule out language conveying truths, even deep ones.

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.

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.

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.

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.

DESPITE the fact that it is an inexact tool. DESPITE the fact that it can lead to errors.

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.

Which is precisely why I referred ALSO to many of your OPs which ARE attempts to convey deep and ultimate truths about society.

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.

Is there any theory that meets your criteria?
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 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 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.

You are mixing things here again. I argue against it in my former comments so I don't repeat myself.

With me you asserted...

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

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.

[bahman]

You are mixing things here again. I argue against it in my former comments so I don't repeat myself.

With me you asserted...

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

That doesn't explain how language avoids inexactness which is your complaint against 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?

[Sculptor]

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.

No measurment can be perfect.

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.

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.

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?

This is how we have come to understand the world.

And our understanding of the world is incomplete. We don't have a theory of everything yet. The standard model is not anomaly-free.

9.8.
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.

[bahman]

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?

So, you think we don't know anything through experiments that include measurements?

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.

just as the floppy boundaries of words and the misimplications of grammar don't rule out language conveying truths, even deep ones.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

DESPITE the fact that it is an inexact tool. DESPITE the fact that it can lead to errors.

What error? Can you guess the ultimate theory when your data is biased with unknown things?

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.

Which is precisely why I referred ALSO to many of your OPs which ARE attempts to convey deep and ultimate truths about society.

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.

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.

Is there any theory that meets your criteria?

Yes, standard model for example. It suffers from anomalies that scientists call dark matter and energy.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

You are mixing things here again. I argue against it in my former comments so I don't repeat myself.

With me you asserted...

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

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.

I already addressed this in my former comment so I won't repeat myself.

[bahman]

No measurment can be perfect.

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.

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.

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?

This is how we have come to understand the world.

And our understanding of the world is incomplete. We don't have a theory of everything yet. The standard model is not anomaly-free.

9.8.
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.

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]

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.

9.8.
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.

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.

It's plenty good enough. Einstein was able to refine the theory from that.
With the theory of gravity we got a probe to the ends of the solar system and a man on the Moon.