One cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement

[Iwannaplato]

Sure. That measurement describes reality well. Making a theory that fits the measurement is another hassle.


I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

You raised the issue - now in my words - that measuring is approximate. There can always be error (somewhere out in the decimal places) but also we don't/can't chase the decimal places in a measurement all the way out. (unless, perhaps, the universe is quantized, where there is a minimum length, but that's another topics). So, measurements are fallible, hence, you argued, if I understood correctly, any theory based on measurement cannot be perfect.

Correct. That is what I mean.

But above I was getting a different, perhaps incorrect impression, that the very working with the physical could not produce perfect theory about ultimate reality. Not merely because of measurement being inexact, but.....

I think it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to produce a theory that is perfect given perfect measurement.

And I'm not sure. But it seemed like it was the wrong category for getting at ultimate truths. Perhaps something in relation to induction vs. deduction or physics vs. metaphysics. Not that you said all this explicitly or any of it, but it was my impression

Sure, we are talking metaphysics here rather than physics.

Right, so my question is could the types of theories in physics, for example, NOT tell us about ultimate reality for two reasons
1) the inexactness of measures
and
2) because it is dealing with physics, empricism rather than, say, deduction metaphysics.

I actually think that physics also deals with metaphysics, but that's a separate issue.

[bahman]

You raised the issue - now in my words - that measuring is approximate. There can always be error (somewhere out in the decimal places) but also we don't/can't chase the decimal places in a measurement all the way out. (unless, perhaps, the universe is quantized, where there is a minimum length, but that's another topics). So, measurements are fallible, hence, you argued, if I understood correctly, any theory based on measurement cannot be perfect.

Correct. That is what I mean.

But above I was getting a different, perhaps incorrect impression, that the very working with the physical could not produce perfect theory about ultimate reality. Not merely because of measurement being inexact, but.....

I think it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to produce a theory that is perfect given perfect measurement.

And I'm not sure. But it seemed like it was the wrong category for getting at ultimate truths. Perhaps something in relation to induction vs. deduction or physics vs. metaphysics. Not that you said all this explicitly or any of it, but it was my impression

Sure, we are talking metaphysics here rather than physics.

Right, so my question is could the types of theories in physics, for example, NOT tell us about ultimate reality for two reasons
1) the inexactness of measures
and

Yes.

2) because it is dealing with physics, empricism rather than, say, deduction metaphysics.

Yes.

I actually think that physics also deals with metaphysics, but that's a separate issue.

I think physics has to respect metaphysical rules if that is what you mean.

[Age]

Yes, more progress. Better measurement allows us to have a better model for the reality.

BUT, ABSOLUTELY ALL measurements can NEVER be perfect, to the last digit correct?

If yes, then 'you' could NEVER EVER arrive AT the 'model of reality', right?

if yes, then even 'this model of reality', which 'you' CLAIM here IS A 'fact', could NEVER be PERFECTLY True, Right, and Factual EXACTLY, agreed?

I am talking about facts about reality and not a theory of reality.

So, TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

Also, TELL 'us' WHY 'the distance' between the moon and the earth, TO the last mile could NEVER be MEASURED, so-called 'perfectly'.

And/or, TELL 'us' WHY 'the amount' of water put in a container could NEVER be MEASURED so-called 'perfectly', TO the last gallon?

Oh, and by the way, WHO MEASURES, or DECIDES, what IS 'reality', or NOT? And, are these MEASUREMENTS and/or DECISIONS DONE 'perfectly'?

[bahman]

BUT, ABSOLUTELY ALL measurements can NEVER be perfect, to the last digit correct?

If yes, then 'you' could NEVER EVER arrive AT the 'model of reality', right?

if yes, then even 'this model of reality', which 'you' CLAIM here IS A 'fact', could NEVER be PERFECTLY True, Right, and Factual EXACTLY, agreed?

I am talking about facts about reality and not a theory of reality.

So, TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

Also, TELL 'us' WHY 'the distance' between the moon and the earth, TO the last mile could NEVER be MEASURED, so-called 'perfectly'.

And/or, TELL 'us' WHY 'the amount' of water put in a container could NEVER be MEASURED so-called 'perfectly', TO the last gallon?

Oh, and by the way, WHO MEASURES, or DECIDES, what IS 'reality', or NOT? And, are these MEASUREMENTS and/or DECISIONS DONE 'perfectly'?

I am talking about the metaphysical aspect of reality that any reality should respect. It is based on clear facts.

[Age]

I am talking about facts about reality and not a theory of reality.

So, TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

Also, TELL 'us' WHY 'the distance' between the moon and the earth, TO the last mile could NEVER be MEASURED, so-called 'perfectly'.

And/or, TELL 'us' WHY 'the amount' of water put in a container could NEVER be MEASURED so-called 'perfectly', TO the last gallon?

Oh, and by the way, WHO MEASURES, or DECIDES, what IS 'reality', or NOT? And, are these MEASUREMENTS and/or DECISIONS DONE 'perfectly'?

I am talking about the metaphysical aspect of reality that any reality should respect. It is based on clear facts.

AND, I SAID:

TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

BUT 'you' can NOT DO 'this', can 'you', "bahman"?

[bahman]

So, TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

Also, TELL 'us' WHY 'the distance' between the moon and the earth, TO the last mile could NEVER be MEASURED, so-called 'perfectly'.

And/or, TELL 'us' WHY 'the amount' of water put in a container could NEVER be MEASURED so-called 'perfectly', TO the last gallon?

Oh, and by the way, WHO MEASURES, or DECIDES, what IS 'reality', or NOT? And, are these MEASUREMENTS and/or DECISIONS DONE 'perfectly'?

I am talking about the metaphysical aspect of reality that any reality should respect. It is based on clear facts.

AND, I SAID:

TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

BUT 'you' can NOT DO 'this', can 'you', "bahman"?

Facts are not measured on anything. They are true, as simple as that.

[Impenitent]

but can you make a perfect dwelling from a perfect measurement?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrBx6mAWYPU

-Imp

[bahman]

but can you make a perfect dwelling from a perfect measurement?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrBx6mAWYPU

-Imp

Yes, you can!

[Age]

I am talking about the metaphysical aspect of reality that any reality should respect. It is based on clear facts.

AND, I SAID:

TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

BUT 'you' can NOT DO 'this', can 'you', "bahman"?

Facts are not measured on anything. They are true, as simple as that.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' KEEP MISSING the QUESTIONING, AND the ACTUAL POINT, here.

BUT 'this' IS JUST what the Intelligently BLIND and the DEAF, ACTUALLY, DO.

[bahman]

AND, I SAID:

TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

BUT 'you' can NOT DO 'this', can 'you', "bahman"?

Facts are not measured on anything. They are true, as simple as that.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' KEEP MISSING the QUESTIONING, AND the ACTUAL POINT, here.

BUT 'this' IS JUST what the Intelligently BLIND and the DEAF, ACTUALLY, DO.

You don't understand what I am saying, do you?

[Age]

Facts are not measured on anything. They are true, as simple as that.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' KEEP MISSING the QUESTIONING, AND the ACTUAL POINT, here.

BUT 'this' IS JUST what the Intelligently BLIND and the DEAF, ACTUALLY, DO.

You don't understand what I am saying, do you?

'you' HAVE PROVEN that 'you' DO NOT.

'you' are SAYING, and CLAIMING, that one can NOT make a so-called 'perfect theory' from a so-called 'imperfect measurement'.

Now. 'I', and "others", have ALREADY SHOWN HOW and WHY 'this' IS Incorrect.

But 'you' do NOT understand what 'I', and "others", have been SAYING here, do 'you'?

[bahman]

OBVIOUSLY 'you' KEEP MISSING the QUESTIONING, AND the ACTUAL POINT, here.

BUT 'this' IS JUST what the Intelligently BLIND and the DEAF, ACTUALLY, DO.

You don't understand what I am saying, do you?

'you' HAVE PROVEN that 'you' DO NOT.

'you' are SAYING, and CLAIMING, that one can NOT make a so-called 'perfect theory' from a so-called 'imperfect measurement'.

Now. 'I', and "others", have ALREADY SHOWN HOW and WHY 'this' IS Incorrect.

But 'you' do NOT understand what 'I', and "others", have been SAYING here, do 'you'?

You have proven that you do not understand.

[Age]

You don't understand what I am saying, do you?

'you' HAVE PROVEN that 'you' DO NOT.

'you' are SAYING, and CLAIMING, that one can NOT make a so-called 'perfect theory' from a so-called 'imperfect measurement'.

Now. 'I', and "others", have ALREADY SHOWN HOW and WHY 'this' IS Incorrect.

But 'you' do NOT understand what 'I', and "others", have been SAYING here, do 'you'?

You have proven that you do not understand.

WHERE, WHEN, and WHAT, EXACTLY?

[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?

[Ansiktsburk]

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?