bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:34 pm
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.
I understood that you disagreed. I am pointing out that language is inexact, so how can it, according to your argument in relation to measurement based conclusions. The whole point is that you obviously do not disagree, hence my mentioning of other threads where you speak, in very abstract language, about the ultimate truths of reality.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pm
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.
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?
I don't know where it has to be biased. But the whole point is that both measurement AND language use are inexact. Yet, you clearly think one can draw conclusions via deductive work in language.
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.
Again, you are missing my point. Perhaps I agree with the conclusions in those OPs. Perhaps I don't. That is irrelevant. Those arguments drawing conclusions about ultimate reality based on language that is inexact, as ALL language is. Yet, you allow yourself to draw conclusions and make assertions about ultimate reality based on what is an inexact process: the use of language by primate brains, where the words have unclear scope and boundaries and where the very grammar of language has philosophical ideas built into it.
You argue that conclusions based on measurement because it is inexact CANNOT inform us about ultimate reality.
I point out that you regularly draw conclusions based on something else, abstract deduction in language which is also inexact. And yet you seem to trust that you can draw valid conclusions about ultimate reality.
And so far I can't see how you have even addressed the issue of the inexactness of language.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pm
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.
The standard model meets your criteria for exactness???????
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?
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.
And you do this via language which is inexact. And yet inexactness is the reason measurment based conclusions cannot...you know the rest.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:03 pm
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.
It doesn't matter. REad the above.
My point is that you allow the use of an inexact way to draw conclusions yourself. I don't care, here, whether your conclusions are true or false in those threads. That has absolutely nothing to do with why I am bringing them up.
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.
No, you have not addressed the inexactness of language. The conclusions themselves are in inexact language. They will be analyzed by inexact verbal language in different minds with slightly different to very different interpretations in their minds.
It's as if someone answered your objection to theory based on measurement by saying 'oh, we'll measure again later and recalibrate later.'
You said
We can communicate well and make the argument precise enough through the discussion.
Precise enough.
Which means it is not exact but it is close enough, according to you. So an inexact set of descriptions and arguments and semantics can lead to conclusions that are close enough via discussion.
But if scientists draw a conclusion about ultimate reality based on not to the last decimal correct data, this cannot happen. CANNOT was your verb choice.
Your inexact process, it's ok, we work it out via discussion Measure based is damned. Even if there checking their results through time and in different labs can be seen as analogous to 'the discussion' and probably even more likely to be precise.
And when I bring up the inexactness of language...your counterexample is when you tell me it is raining. I think we have different ideas about what ultimate truths about the nature of reality are.
You have not addressed the radical difference in slack you allow yourself and you allow scientists (re: the inexactness of language). You haven't addressed my central argument for several posts now.
It's fine if you disagree, but at least disagree with what I write. I gotta take a pause.