Nay, O cannot possibly be said to move from (1,1,1) to (2,1,1) unless O is at (1,1,1) at some t coordinate t1, — InPitzotl

How on Earth you wanna keep t constant? By clapping in your hands and make time stop? If so, how you wanna move over x?

People work in different disciplines with different problems and different language, but we all need to use and manage knowledge — T Clark

Why do I need to use and manage my knowledge? I have no intention using it let alone managing it.

There is an incipient antirealism at work here. — Banno

Indeed. On your side. Time can't be kept constant. It runs no matter what.

You and I see things differently. — T Clark

I couldn't agree more.

Notice that the branches change, becoming thinner and more numerous towards the top of the tree? — Banno

How do you know? By moving your attention from bottom to top in time.

A method is a dogma. You have introduced a method, a dogma. You might not be dogmatic about it, but it's still a dogma. The dogma of scientific method. It's no promoter of knowledge but an inhibitor.

The dogma of the scientific method

The case was that we thought we knew almost everything about the way matter worked, and were proven wrong. — Manuel

That's simply because we don't know how it is to be matter.

We're wired to be selfish (so says evolution and other sources) — Agent Smith

We're wired to be selfish? By our selfish genes? Any act of altruism being selfish in nature in fact, because we are ordered so by our genes and memes who only want to procreate, replicate, and reproduce.

They need to reproduce (with John Agar)
They need to reproduce (with Morris Ankrum)
They need to reproduce (with Richard Basehart)
They need to reproduce (with Jackie Coogan)
They need to reproduce (with Sonny Tufts)

But, the confidence that your consideration of an object is free from bias (dispassionate, equitable, fair, impartial, just, and objective) could indicate that you are not aware of your subconscious motives and beliefs — Gnomon

I'm well aware that reality as I perceive the object with a bias. How else could it be? But so does Rovelli, who objects to the notion of a particle. I don't see a problem in the particle concept. I think the notion of everyday objects can be applied to the micro world. Particles actually zipping through space, collectively and irreversible, while reversible on the micro level.

Our bias is projected onto the material world. Some perceice atoms as structureless particles constituting an ideal gas, others see atoms as liquid micro drops encapsulated by a structured cloud of electron activity, and still others see the nucleus only and consider it an aggregate of liquorice and sugar, ignoring the charged sugar swarming around it. :razz:

One sign

No. The SCM is a procedure. A method. — T Clark

That's what I meant. A fairy tale. There is no scientist in the world who behaves and thinks obediently to a method. In fact, progress in science can only be achieved by breaking with the method and thus method is a hindrance to progress. It can serve as a guide in scientific practice but only for an imaginary scientist in an imaginary surrounding. In other words, for a fairy tale scientist in a fairy tale world.

It's not about dogmatism, it's about how you approach questions about the nature of truth and knowledge — T Clark

Which proceeds according the SCM. An approach following a method seems pretty dogmatic to me.

Let's hope things don't escalate too much more. Welcome 2022 — Manuel

I did some reading here and encountered the proposition that atomic bombs are for defense only (even saw it mentioned that the use of these toys can be understood when that use is in non-urban area...). Whether you place these bombs in a frame of complementarity or deterrence, fact remains that they are still there, ready for launch or drop.It has to be admitted though that their destructive power has been reduced: the face of the Earth can now be destroyed only x (x >1) times instead of 10x... There are still 15 000 active warheads.

To be fair, the original comment was even more more arrogant than T Clark's response

So you base your philosophy on fairy tales rather than on solid fact?
— Cornwell1 — pfirefry

I shouldn't say this, but I will - all philosophies are based on fairy tales. — T Clark

So that's literally what is done. SCM is a fairy tale. It's nor true nor false. Just a tale. It contains six chapters:

First - Put together what you know about the subject at hand and how you know it.

Second - set up what we call a Site Conceptual Model (SCM). Not really a theory. It's more comprehensive than that. It's the sum total of everything we know about something, how the different parts fit together, and an understanding of the uncertainty about that knowledge. An SCM can apply to a single property where we're trying to clean up contamination or the whole universe, depending on the scope of our interest.

Third - Find the places where the SCM is inadequate - do your best to figure out where there are gaps in your knowledge or where there are significant uncertainties.

Fourth - collect more data. Reformulate the SCM. Reevaluate its adequacy for the task at hand. Repeat as necessary.

Fifth - use the SCM to plan how to achieve your goals.

Sixth - based on the results of your attempts to meet
your goals, repeat the third and fourth steps if necessary.

Let's examine the chapters and offer some rational critique.

chapter 1
Put together what you know about the subject at hand and how you know it.

Okay, let's do that. On a golf terrain, a brown circular stain surfaced on the grass. Probably broken barrels, illegally dumped, as we have cleaned a similar site not far away from here too. Measurements and observations of the case at hand show similarities and differences. There are barrels buried. Contents are different and partially known.

Chapter 2
Set up what we call a Site Conceptual Model (SCM). Not really a theory. It's more comprehensive than that. It's the sum total of everything we know about something, how the different parts fit together, and an understanding of the uncertainty about that knowledge. An SCM can apply to a single property where we're trying to clean up contamination or the whole universe, depending on the scope of our interest.

We have cleaned up hundreds of polluted terrains where barrels were illegally dumped. We know what poisons we encountered, how to take out the barrels safely, how to transport the barrels safely, remove the poison from the barrels later on (though this is done by other agencies), we have a list of toxins we are likely to encounter, we know their consequences when we are exposed to them, we know their properties, etcetera, etcetera. We also know the uncertainties, approximations made, limits of applicability, etc. We have a full inventory of the equipment used in the battle. We know the universe of illegally dumping barrels with poison and it's shortcomings. It's just a universe, not true or not true, but it just exists. A The sum total of the knowledge about the poison barrel universe and the knowledge of what is unknown. Kind of like the universe the EOD assesses, but more complicated (more or less dangerous). This is a long chapter. The title of this fairy: SCM.

Chapter 3
Find the places where the SCM is inadequate - do your best to figure out where there are gaps in your knowledge or where there are significant uncertainties.

In chapter 3 the characters described in chapter 1 and 2 meet, and in an intense romantic affair they exchange juices. We can see this happening in many fairy tales. Universal knowledge, found in the poison barrel universe of the SCM, is positively adjusted by the case at hand and the SCM offers a great a priori guide for the investigation at hand, after establishing poisoned barrels are involved.

Chapter 4
Collect more data. Reformulate the SCM. Reevaluate its adequacy for the task at hand. Repeat as necessary.

The characters continue to make love and the come to know each other better the more they engage, the more they know each other, if necessary. They fill each other in and even give each other meaning. How romantic!

Chapter 5
[/b]Use the SCM to plan how to achieve your goals.[/b]

We can start solving our local problem. We start digging on the firm base of the adjusted SCM.

Chapter 6
Based on the results of your attempts to meet
your goals, repeat the third and fourth steps if necessary.

During digging, no doubt we meet new challenges and new difficulties. To find a solution we can invoke the SCM, but it's unlikely we will find solutions as the arisen challenges, unknowns and difficulties were not part yet of the known part of the universe the SCM addresses. Again, a romantic encounter follows, untill enough juices have been exchanged. Then the digging continues, untill one fine day a perfect digging will be possible. No more love making will be involved except to exchange tiny bits of fluids, so only a small kiss will suffice. Happily ever after...?

This philosophy is a realism about a metaphysical universe guiding and pulling through our observations and actions. We get to know this reality bit by bit, and it gets modified every time we investigate. We converge on reality by recursive relation (last chapters of your fairy tale, as you, unwillingly, admitted it to be). It's naive realism. An exciting fairy tale!

Objective purity would require decontaminating the body of its "selfish genes" and the mind of "acquired beliefs". — Gnomon

Why it does require that? We can consider an object without decontaminating our body of "selfish genes" and the mind of acquired believes. We can discover all kinds of properties in the studied object. These are objective properties.

The questions we ask the object will modify the object and the object will answer accordingly. Both us and the object are involved in it's construction.

Everybody loves you when you're dead. They crucify you when you get it wrong, when things are fine they put you ahead.They laugh at you with your trousers down or pick the stones and aim them at you're head. When you're alive, they won't care what you said or what you deserve and all the blood you bled.
It doesn't matter what you try to hide, the sun comes out and then the truth is read. Your fans will love you while you're alive, but the wreaths are laid by the rest instead.
Everybody loves you when you're dead.

So as the Earth becomes uninhabitable, the emissions will reduce? — Banno

Yes. There will be no more humans to sustain the exhaust of carbondioxide or to inflate economy. Emissions of all poisons will be zero, unless some form of AI will linger on after us. Given the fact that AI's are not capable of autonomous existence, the logical conclusion is that emission will reduce.

Damage done to nature ("the environment") is the cause of the reduction in a teleological approach. Cause and effect inversion.

Both the assumed existence of the universe as a language and math being the language spoken by it (the "universal language") are utterly nonsensical. The assumptions reflect the attitude to objectivize a way of thinking, and by projecting these on the universe it makes one think that there is only one true language for all.

The universe is mathematical (Max Tegmark et al) simply means that if you mathematize the universe, it becomes comprehensible. — Agent Smith

Most things in the universe have no corresponding mathematical structure. Only approximations will do. What's the mathematical structure of a piece of music?

It would seem another physicist has entered the room — jgill

You are the "father of modern bouldering"? And a mathematician too? That's quite something! I saw quite an impressive picture of you. You hang on one arm with stretched horizontal body! Is the device you hang on a mathematical structure?

I we consider a constant t there is a change in color when we vary x. These are partial derivatives though: $\frac{\partial c} {\partial x}$. How on Earth can you keep t constant?

What I'm really concerned about is if climate action has a deadline to meet and whether we're already past that date with destiny. — Agent Smith

"It's a sad sad situation, and it's getting more and more absurd", so my husband sings frequently. Already some time ago the deadline should have been met. Corona made the exhaust drop, but he fears that when all is normalized thing get worse than they already were. "Nouvaux elan"... Why can't just hold back for a while, think things over, and restart fresh and clean?

ONE QUARK IN THREE FLAVORS blueberry, strawberry and lemon-lime — Gnomon

Tasty flavors! I think there are two flavors of tasty stuff. They are pure kinetic energy. Let's call them L(iquorice), and S(ugar). And let's call their anti's l and s. The L has electric charge 1/3 and S has charge 0, and two kinds of color charges (a strong one to form colorless triplets and a normal one to form colored ones).

Electron (muon tau)
lll
Up quark (charm quark, top quark)
LLS
Down quark (strange quark, bottom quark)
lss
Electron neutrino (muon neutrino, and tau neutrino)
SSS

In an electron, proton (uud), neutron (anti-(udd)), and electron neutrino reside equal amounts of matter and antimatter! No asymmetry between matter and antimatter. Excitations of the triplets are the three particle families. Excited liquorices and sugars. And they are massless, explaining the relation between mass and energy. How bout that?

Be careful, his big brother might decide you are a snotty little twerp and decide to slap you down a lot harder. All vendetta starts this way. Turn it off and that way, it does not grow. — universeness

:100:

Scientific reality can't be caught in a metaphysical jacket. For scientific practice to be free, not one jacket will do. They become straight jackets.

I certainly don't need the fairy tale book of Collingwood to base my science and actions on. I can learn of the brothers Grimm even more, and I know their wicked fairies "fairly" well. :smile:

We know pretty well what Quarks do, but have no idea what they are. We can't compare them to anything in our sensory experience of the world. — Gnomon

Don't think so. Quarks can be viewed as triplets. An up-quark is TTV. A down quark tvv. An electron is ttt and a neutrino VVV. Small letters anti particles. The three families are excitations. A particle is just an object moving through space. That's not so difficult to imagine. Point-like is different to imagine. The particles jumping madly between paths is quite weird as is their interaction. Somehow they are consciousness and long for other particles. Or wanna stay away from each other. Already at fundamental level love and hate rule! :razz:

The butterfly effect is just a fable. A butterfly's flap doesn't
cause a hurricane on the other side of the Earth. Only global variation of the variables can lead to significant changes, if no hidden potential energy sources like a dam with water behind it, can be unleashed.

You can use unpredictability as an excuse for climate change denial. "How can we know?" We can.

Sorry for asking, but are you the "mountaineer"?

It's a metaphysical assertion, not a statement of fact — T Clark

So you base your philosophy on fairy tales rather than on solid fact?

Reality is fundamentally mathematical makes sense to me, especially in light of Quantum Physics, where the structure of reality is a mathematical Field — Gnomon

But what

constitues

a mathematical "Field" (why do you write it with a capital F?). If we are a collection of mathematical formulas, is there an isomorphism between the world of formulas as encountered around us and the mathematical formulas constituting us? Is this isomorphism a mathematical structure?

Note to self -- The basic element of my Information Universe is the "Re-El" (reality element) which is a ratio between existence and non-existence (1 or 0). The universe as a whole, is continuous, but its constituent parts are discrete. — Gnomon

I think that here you conflate reality with fantasy, as Tegmark seems to do.

I don't know what this means. — T Clark

Why you don't understand this? I have read this (interesting!) thread ab initio.

You asserted "that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life". Is that why you don't understand the meaning?

WE MUST NOT COUNT ON GOVERNMENT BECAUSE WE CAN GET PRESIDENTS WHO LEAD US IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. WE MUST COUNT ON DEMOCRACY- THAT IS ALL OF US WORKING TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE GOALS. :heart: :flower:
2h — Athena

That's the true spirit of democracy! The term is too often abused to justify the tyrant.

Second, is there any difference between weather & climate models used for making global warming predictions that would mean chaos theory is inapplicable to climate? — Agent Smith

My husband, a meteorologist at the NWS, once explained me. The butterfly effect is no real effect. One butterfly cannot cause a storm in USA if she flaps wings in China! The butterfly effect is rather poor name giving. It's meant to ilustrate chaos but does so wrongly. Small changes can produce divergent solutions, and the air around the butterfly behaves chaotically but to change the weather on global scale you have to vary conditions globally. A simple flap won't do.
Weather can't be predicted (though the predictions can be quite accurate). Climate prediction is more reliable.


My husband, a meteorologist at NWS, told me a nice story about butterflies. One good day, butterflies realized they got screwed by Lorenz (name giver of effect).

As a pragmatist, I assert that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life, and experience of normal human beings. — T Clark

Do you have scientific evidence for this assertion?