You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

onomatomanic

['Member']Joined: November 04, 2021 at 18:47Last active: December 08, 2021 at 23:211 discussions28 comments

Discussions (1)

Comments

... and jiggling! Kidding aside, I dunno that the link you imagine exists, or that the link that does exist is all that interesting. When a player cha...
November 24, 2021 at 20:29
Visualizing different laws of the nature is straightforward, as demonstragted by ^ cartoon physics. Visualizing different mathematics and logics is va...
November 24, 2021 at 19:15
Fuzzy concept, fuzzy logic. I take your point that the more fundamental the concept, the more uneasy it makes us to think that way. But that has every...
November 21, 2021 at 22:12
The human mind likes binary propositions. Nature does not. At the very least, "the property of 'being alive'" has fuzzy edges. And reconsidering it in...
November 21, 2021 at 16:16
Pure trial-and-error is less efficient than design, of course, but it can be more effective - because it has no qualms about exploring the entirety of...
November 20, 2021 at 19:08
Heh, I was only thinking of contrasting the two contexts, and here you are combining them. Interesting idea!
November 16, 2021 at 20:40
That was rather the point. Does it make a difference? Why or why not? The answers to those new questions may provide insight into the original one. Wh...
November 16, 2021 at 18:42
This might be a worthwhile approach: Pick a definition, then replace the common element in that definition by something else, then look for a third ty...
November 16, 2021 at 12:02
In a thought experiment, you can have such a thing as a perfect speedometer, and use it to perfectly determine relative speeds, and use those to test ...
November 15, 2021 at 19:33
Can, yes, I reckon so. When one interprets the terms more broadly, they simply partition the whole, along the lines of "nature" standing for "all thin...
November 15, 2021 at 18:19
Re-reading the recent posts, I think any remaining confusion comes down to theory versus application, more than anything else. The concept of "precisi...
November 15, 2021 at 15:24
Agreed, but with reservations. We can "parametrise" the speed summation equation like this in general: v = gamma * (v1+v2) According to Newton, gamma ...
November 10, 2021 at 13:13
Okay, I think I see now what you're grappling with. The point is this one: A) Low-precision version of the experiment Data v1 ~ 111.110 km/s (speed of...
November 10, 2021 at 11:48
Unlikely, I'd say. What one learns in school about the Scientific Method is that when a new practical result turns out to contradict the old theoretic...
November 09, 2021 at 22:22
Do you mean that our mathematical methods and computing resources are insufficient to apply GR to certain classes of problems, or that the model itsel...
November 08, 2021 at 19:13
Yes. It gets a bit trickier when the inputs aren't of the order of magnitude of 1, which is to say, aren't between 1 and 10: C) If m = 20.1 and a = 30...
November 08, 2021 at 16:22
Quite. Unfortunately, it's less precise while also being more effort. So as a model, it's objectively worse, and there is no situation in which it wou...
November 07, 2021 at 20:16
The general proof again needs statistical methods, no doubt. For the specific case of a multiplication like F = ma, though, just think of the inputs a...
November 07, 2021 at 20:11
Depends on who you ask. In the context of modern physics, it's pretty much the heart of the matter. Newtonian mechanics isn't false, and Relativity is...
November 07, 2021 at 19:47
I'd normally not comment on this, outside of grading homework, but since precision is what this thread it about: Your last line is slightly problemati...
November 07, 2021 at 19:32
Just to clarify, the static-versus-dynamic contrast is what I am concerned with; "describe the situation" isn't. So saying that view A is more static ...
November 06, 2021 at 22:19
Well, let's take a step back, then. Would you agree that what I'll call a naive worldview - that of a child or a caveman, say, developed on the basis ...
November 06, 2021 at 20:15
Yes, I expect that statement was what triggered my meme connection, it just took a while to sink in - thanks again! The nice thing about memetics is t...
November 06, 2021 at 17:05
Hm. Either my understanding of Dawkins's formulation of memetics is very flawed, or yours is. Here's mine: The basis for the so-called "Central Dogma"...
November 06, 2021 at 14:29
Not sure I follow in turn. The pseudo-scientific ideas mentioned in the OP (like creationism) and the pre-scientific idea about rest being a more natu...
November 06, 2021 at 04:47
Hang on, I just made another connection. Namely, that it may be fruitful to re-consider the various approaches and views and models mentioned as memes...
November 06, 2021 at 04:47
Thanks! My basic contention is that scientific models have a tendency to be less static than their non-scientific counterparts, such as the pre-scient...
November 05, 2021 at 20:47
True, scientific models are biased toward qualities like quantifiability and reproducibility, in the sense that models without those qualities are bad...
November 05, 2021 at 18:13