Right, and you could also believe that 勾股定理 has been corroborated many times. You could even believe that without understanding what 勾股定理 means. You could have read text books that communicate the verified truthiness of 勾股定理 and come to accept it as a scientific fact, even without knowing what it means, right?

↪Arcane Sandwich
Right, and you could also believe that 勾股定理 has been corroborated many times. — flannel jesus

But you told me not to look it up. Why would you even give me such a bizarre instruction to begin with?

You could even believe that without understanding what 勾股定理 means. — flannel jesus

Why would I even do that? If I don't know what it means, then the only sensible thing to do is to find out what it means. But you told me not to do that. So how could I know what it means?

You could have read text books that communicate the verified truthiness of 勾股定理 and come to accept it as a scientific fact — flannel jesus

But you told me not to do that, so how could I?

even without knowing what it means, right? — flannel jesus

No, that's not how science works. At all.

So you know what it means to multiply a mass by a speed, twice? Can you explain it to me?

I know what it means to multiply a Time by a Speed. If you have a car going x miles per hour, you can multiply that by the number of hours they were going that speed to find out how many miles they travelled. I get the meaning of that deeply.

I don't know what it means to multiply a mass by a speed, twice. Do you?

I tried to ask chat gpt, what does it mean to multiply mass by a speed and then by a speed again? Chat gpt gave a very illuminating answer:

A network error occurred. Please check your connection and try again. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.

I tried to ask chat gpt, what does it mean to multiply mass by a speed and then by a speed again? Chat gpt gave a very illuminating answer:

A network error occurred. Please check your connection and try again. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com. — flannel jesus

Artificial Intelligence is not Human Intelligence. This surprises you, somehow?

That's what we call a little bit of humor.

Do you know what it means to multiply a mass by a speed, twice? What does it mean? Not numerically, conceptually. Why would you ever multiply a mass by a speed twice?

Most people intuit why you would multiply a Time by a Speed. That makes intuitive sense. Why a mass?

↪Arcane Sandwich
So you know what it means to multiply a mass by a speed, twice? Can you explain it to me? — flannel jesus

I already told you the procedure: 1) solve the square of c, then multiply that by m. It's not that difficult.

I know what it means to multiply a Time by a Speed. — flannel jesus

I'm all ears.

If you have a car going x miles per hour, you can multiply that by the number of hours they were going that speed to find out how many miles they travelled. I get the meaning of that deeply. — flannel jesus

Sounds great.

I don't know what it means to multiply a mass by a speed, twice. Do you? — flannel jesus

I've already said my piece about this, flannel jesus.

↪Arcane Sandwich
That's what we call a little bit of humor. — flannel jesus

"we" as in "who"? You and me?

Do you know what it means to multiply a mass by a speed, twice? What does it mean? Not numerically, conceptually. Why would you ever multiply a mass by a speed twice? — flannel jesus

Why don't you tell me?

Most people intuit why you would multiply a Time by a Speed. That makes intuitive sense. Why a mass? — flannel jesus

Again, why don't you tell me?

Again, why don't you tell me? — Arcane Sandwich

I'm not the one claiming to understand it so I wouldn't know.

Any truth value I put in e equal mc2 is based on trust that people who do understand it are competent enough to test for it and experimentally show that it works.

I'm not claiming understanding. I'm explicitly saying, I have no idea what it means. I don't know why anyone would multiply a mass by a speed and then by a speed again.

Given your answers here, I don't think you do either.

Any 6 year old could plug numbers into a calculator. That's all your procedure is. That's not understanding.

It's okay if you don't understand. I don't either. I think we could have an interesting conversation if you just admitted it. You don't know why it's meaningful to multiply a mass by a speed twice.

I don't know why anyone would multiply a mass by a speed and then by a speed again. — flannel jesus

Yeah man, I hear what you're saying, but you're sorta talking past me. I mean, think of it like this:

Who needs to know what x and y are, when you say something like: x = y + 3

Do you really need to know what x and y are in that case?

And if your answer is "yes", then consider this other formula: a = a,
Or this other one: a = b

Do you really need to know what they mean? No, you don't. a = a is T, while a = b can be T or F.

And if I say "it is not the case that a=a", then I can represent that as "not a=a", or I can even say something like !(a=a), or maybe a!=a, or stuff like that. Or maybe ¬a=a. It doesn't matter, all of those are F, because contradictions are always F, tautologies are always T, and contingencies can be either T or F.

Again, why is it that you don't understand it? That question makes no sense, because you do understand it!

So why are you giving me such a tough time with Einstein's formula? It's a super basic formula, what's your actual difficulty with it? You don't need to understand it, it's just a formula!

One of the answers you actually could have given that would have been reasonable, but which you neglected, would have been to specify units. Without units, e equals MC squared isn't even true. E only equals MC squared within compatible units.

So when I asked what does it mean to say it's true, you could have actually said, "it means that I believe that if I take the speed of light in meters per second, square it, and multiply by mass in kilogrammes, that will be equal to the energy in joules.". That's more meaningful than what you said, because everything you said is unitless - but there's still one important thing missing from that - that calculation equals the energy OF WHAT?

Plugging numbers in isn't meaning. Replacing letters with the words they stand for isn't meaning. Even using the proper units is only a step towards meaning, but there's still a final unanswered question, it equals the energy of what?

I'm giving you a tough time because I think it's interesting! I think it's interesting that people can say something is true, without being able to say anything about what that something is.

Imagine a child who is around his dad a lot. He heard people say about his dad that his dad is very Fargle. He knows Fargle is a good thing, but he doesn't know what makes one person Fargle and another person not-fargle.

So he thinks his dad is Fargle, and he also doesn't know what Fargle means. I think that's interesting. If anybody asks him if his dad is Fargle, he'll give the "correct answer", but when it comes out of his mouth there's almost a sense in which it's not correct. He doesn't MEAN the correct thing by it when he says it's true. He's just saying sounds.

I think that's interesting.

One of the answers you actually could have given that would have been reasonable, but which you neglected, would have been to specify units. — flannel jesus

Einstein's formula, from a purely mathematical point of view, does not require them.

the energy OF WHAT? — flannel jesus

Again, why don't you tell me?

I guess as long as you allow for an implicit scaling factor. e equal S mc2. Without a scaling factor, it's the wrong answer.

you're the one who made the statement that it's true. You ought to know my dude

I agree that is true, but I don't pretend to grasp the meaning. It's true to me in the same way that is true to that kid that his dad is Fargle.

What if I told you to ask Einstein himself? Then what?

then I would giggle cause that's silly

Ok, so what's the most reasonable alternative, then?

My question isn't a question of curiosity, it's a question of meaning. It's not meaningful for you to say e equals MC squared if you don't know what it's the energy of. What are you calculating? The energy, fine, the energy of what? If you don't know, then you saying it's "true" is a lot like a kid saying his dad is Fargle

For example I can say that if I put a fraction into the cosine function, it gives me "the angle". I'm on the way towards true understanding, but without knowing the angle OF WHAT, I'm just regurgitating words. Regurgitating words isn't meaning, even if there's a context in which those words are true.

My question isn't a question of curiosity, it's a question of meaning. It's not meaningful for you to say e equals MC squared if you don't know what it's the energy of. — flannel jesus

It's the energy of an ordinary object, such as a stone or a table, for example.

What are you calculating? — flannel jesus

You're calculating the relationship between energy, mass, and the speed of light.

The energy, fine, the energy of what? — flannel jesus

Again, the energy of an ordinary object, such as a stone, or a table, for example.

If you don't know, — flannel jesus

Yet I do know. And so do you. It's super obvious.

then you saying it's "true" is a lot like a kid saying his dad is Fargle — flannel jesus

Whatever, man. When someone asks me if a=a is true, I say yes. When they ask me if a=b is true, I say that it depends on the case. And when someone asks me if a=a is false, I say no. And when they ask me if a=b is false, I tell them that it depends on the case.

I don't think it is obvious. What does "the energy of an ordinary object" mean? I'm looking at my table, sitting there menacingly. I don't know what it means to talk about it's "energy". Do you? What does that mean?

kinetic and potential energy, dude. In Newtonian terms. It's super simple. You already know this.

I don't. It equals the kinetic AND potential? At the same time?

Of course it does. Scientists distinguish many different kinds of energy. But's the same type of property, at the end of the day: E.

Fun fact: you're actually incorrect. The e in the equation is not about the sum of potential and kinetic energy. It refers to the objects "rest energy", which is a different figure altogether.

You've been saying how obvious it is, I don't think you're really taking seriously how extremely non obvious all this is. You think it's obvious but you have the wrong answers.

You don't know what it means.

And that's okay, but I think you could have a more interesting exploration of it all if you stopped calling it obvious and acknowledged that a bit.

It refers to the objects "rest energy", which is a different figure altogether. — flannel jesus

It's the same as rest mass. And since you have rest in both cases, you can simplify it, so that you're actually talking about energy and mass. Again, this isn't rocket science.

You don't know what it means. — flannel jesus

Ok, then why don't you tell me what it means?

And that's okay, but I think you could have a more interesting exploration of it all if you stopped calling it obvious and acknowledged that a bit. — flannel jesus

Acknowledge what? Its a formula, dude. There is nothing to understand about it!

Its a formula, dude — Arcane Sandwich

Something that's just a formula has no truth value whatsoever. It doesn't make sense to call a formula "true".

A = dx + ey - z^3 true or false?

Something that's just a formula has no truth value whatsoever. — flannel jesus

I disagree. For all formulas, there are three kinds: those that are T, those that are F, and those that can be either T or F, depending on the case.

It doesn't make sense to call a formula "true". — flannel jesus

It has a truth value: T or F.