One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement

[Sculptor]

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

Is a theory something only a scientists guy might have?

No.
ANyone can make a theory. Even Bahman. Might be like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs


Why do you ask?

[bahman]

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.

Is the theory that earth circles around the sun a qualitative or a quantitative theory?

Quantitative.

[Ansiktsburk]

By theory, I mean something that can tell you the quantitative features of a system. What you are talking about is qualitative.

Is the theory that earth circles around the sun a qualitative or a quantitative theory?

Quantitative.

Both theories have a pretty similar yes/no proposition. What makes planets turning around stars more quantitative? If bats can telepatically communicate with seagulls, you probably can figure out with as may details about that as with planet orbits and the similar.

[Ansiktsburk]

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

Is a theory something only a scientists guy might have?

No.
ANyone can make a theory. Even Bahman. Might be like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs


Why do you ask?

Because only science guys probably cares about experimental results. At least experimental results with a capital E and R.

[Sculptor]

Is a theory something only a scientists guy might have?

No.
ANyone can make a theory. Even Bahman. Might be like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs


Why do you ask?

Because only science guys probably cares about experimental results. At least experimental results with a capital E and R.

Are you defining "science guys" by their insitstence on experiemental results?

[bahman]

Is the theory that earth circles around the sun a qualitative or a quantitative theory?

Quantitative.

Both theories have a pretty similar yes/no proposition. What makes planets turning around stars more quantitative? If bats can telepatically communicate with seagulls, you probably can figure out with as may details about that as with planet orbits and the similar.

Sorry, I should said qualitative. The theory which deals with the exact position of Earth is quantitative.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Therefore a God is supposedly must be Perfect, i.e. omni-whatever cannot exists as real to be verified by physical measurements.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

• 1. Relative perfection
  2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

Perfect:
Note the relevant meaning for 'perfect' is;
d : ABSOLUTE, UNEQUIVOCAL
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect
When I used the term 'absolute perfect' is a double enforcement to the meaning of 'perfection.

Absolute:
- a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

In philosophy (often specifically metaphysics), the absolute, in most common usage, is a perfect, self-sufficient reality that depends upon nothing external to itself.[1] In theology, the term is also used to designate the supreme being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)

[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.

Therefore a God is supposedly must be Perfect, i.e. omni-whatever cannot exists as real to be verified by physical measurements.

That does not follow. The fact that our measurement is not perfect does not mean that God is not real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Therefore a God is supposedly must be Perfect, i.e. omni-whatever cannot exists as real to be verified by physical measurements.

That does not follow. The fact that our measurement is not perfect does not mean that God is not real.

Whatever is real, factual, true, knowledge, objective must be conditioned upon a specific human based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].

What is most real [at present] is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
The grounding of scientific reality is the verification and justification via "physical measurements" of empirical evidence supported by rationality.
There is no other FSK that is more realistic than the scientific FSK, if you claim otherwise, which FSK?

Surely, God cannot be real within the scientific FSK? i.e. God cannot be a scientific fact or reality.

1. Physical measurements are not perfect.
2. Science as the most realistic rely on physical measurement [+ rationality].
3. God must exists as an absolute perfect being.
4. Therefore, God cannot be most realistic.

[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.

Therefore a God is supposedly must be Perfect, i.e. omni-whatever cannot exists as real to be verified by physical measurements.

That does not follow. The fact that our measurement is not perfect does not mean that God is not real.

Whatever is real, factual, true, knowledge, objective must be conditioned upon a specific human based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].

What is most real [at present] is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
The grounding of scientific reality is the verification and justification via "physical measurements" of empirical evidence supported by rationality.
There is no other FSK that is more realistic than the scientific FSK, if you claim otherwise, which FSK?

Surely, God cannot be real within the scientific FSK? i.e. God cannot be a scientific fact or reality.

1. Physical measurements are not perfect.
2. Science as the most realistic rely on physical measurement [+ rationality].
3. God must exists as an absolute perfect being.
4. Therefore, God cannot be most realistic.

What you are saying simply does not follow. Could we please stay on the topic of this thread?

[Ansiktsburk]

No.
ANyone can make a theory. Even Bahman. Might be like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs


Why do you ask?

Because only science guys probably cares about experimental results. At least experimental results with a capital E and R.

Are you defining "science guys" by their insitstence on experiemental results?

Nah rather defining the non science guys that do accept other input as well

[Sculptor]

Because only science guys probably cares about experimental results. At least experimental results with a capital E and R.

Are you defining "science guys" by their insitstence on experiemental results?

Nah rather defining the non science guys that do accept other input as well

You mean like scientists.
No experiement led to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
No experiement gave Einstein his insight into relativity.
In most instances experiementation is designed to confirm a theory. Rarely does science emerge from an experiement.

[bahman]

Are you defining "science guys" by their insitstence on experiemental results?

Nah rather defining the non science guys that do accept other input as well

... Rarely does science emerge from an experiement.

That is not true.

[Sculptor]

Nah rather defining the non science guys that do accept other input as well

... Rarely does science emerge from an experiement.

That is not true.

I'll go further..
Science come before the experiement in nearly every instance.
The theory comes first and then the experiement is designed to test it.

[bahman]

... Rarely does science emerge from an experiement.

That is not true.

I'll go further..
Science come before the experiement in nearly every instance.
The theory comes first and then the experiement is designed to test it.

That is not true.