If there's virtue here, it's not in eschewing choice or convenience, but in (a) looking and (b) holding your beliefs as open to revision — Srap Tasmaner

A multimodal social semiotics perspective to science teaching and learning considers
the language of science a cultural tool for meaning-making, where the mode used to
inscribe the scientific ideas produces the intended meanings for the meaning-maker
(Kress et al. 2001). Within the field of physics education, social semiotics perspectives
have productively been used to examine student learning. Here, physics learning is
viewed as “becoming fluent in a critical constellation” of modes (Airey and Linder
2009, 27). Each mode (speech, graph, diagram, mathematics, gesture) can be seen to
have different affordances, and meaning-making can be viewed as the effect of all these
modes acting jointly. Volkwyn et al. (2019), drawing on Bezemer and Kress (2008),
describe the movement from one mode to another as “transduction”. Studies show that
a multimodal conceptualisation of science teaching enables students to better access the
semiotic resources needed for successful learning of science (Airey and Simpson 2019).

The realist position differs from the usual one adopted in quantum mechanics in that it attempts to describe what actually happens in the case of individual events, rather than simply computing averages. The difference is apparent in the case of a typical high-energy physics experiment in which large numbers of individual events are observed. Quantum theory addresses only statistical averages, whereas one can imagine instead a theory that can describe what happens individual events. In confining oneself to statistics as is the norm, one may be missing crucial information, as would indeed
happen in sciences such as astronomy. This would clearly be the case in astronomy, where for
example a statistical approach to meteor showers would fail to note the occasional peaks in
intensity.

Postmodern quantum mechanics rejects the quasi-theological fundamentalism governing much of recent high-energy physics . . .

To Oresme, an object moves, but it is not a moving object. Once an object begins movement through the three dimensions it has a new “modus rei” or “way of being,” which should only be described through the perspective of the moving object, rather than a distinct point.

Well, when we explore space, we don't see any Boltzmann brains — RogueAI

Just saw Oppenheimer. Nolan is representative of the times— the “auteur” of plebs. — Mikie

Leibniz v Newton is still a topic in history of ideas and physics, to do with their competing understandings of time. — Wayfarer

Maths in its casual absolutism can provide pragmatic models of reality. But here you would need to start to think about how reality itself might be more deeply described — apokrisis

Yes but the dispute over whether it was Newton or Liebniz [Leibniz] who came up with calculus is the part you will hear about outside mathematics class. — Wayfarer

Why is differentiation reciprocal to integration? — apokrisis

The real world of natural processes is pretty fractal, ain't it? Mountains, coastlines, rivers, earthquakes — apokrisis

A coastline is irregular over every scale of observation because it is a dynamical balance between smoothness and roughness. Or "integration and differentiation". — apokrisis

But maybe the Cosmos just ain't a computation as maths would like to demand, and instead dynamical balance — apokrisis

I know, not quite what you mean. :cool: — jgill

But note how fractals neatly express the intermediate case between the continuous and the discrete. — apokrisis

Leibniz came up with the idea, — jgill

Wasn’t that contested by Newton? — Wayfarer

But these people started so young and got so famous so quickly that it’s as if they’ve been in the background since the 1880s. — Mikie

Dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien

In reality, nothing could be absolutely continuous as it would indeed just break the yardstick — apokrisis

But doesn't infinitesimal mean exceedingly small? — Alkis Piskas

The same applies to "a period of tme" or "interval of time". They are all self-referential expressions. I know these expressions are commonly used. But better avoid this, at least in this place, isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas

That would require an instant of zero-length. Which is absurd of course. So, we have to set a length for an instant, however small that may be. Which makes "present" a relative thing. — Alkis Piskas

Time does not actually exist. — Alkis Piskas

It seems to me, that any notion of a personal 'awareness of time,' must be perceived with a description of expansion/inflation/ relative reference frames, such as Victors in mind. 'It's all relative.' — universeness

Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel

Metaphysics makes the guesses. Science checks them out — apokrisis

If it can. So far the Measurement Problem and String theory are left dangling in a scientific void. My take is that metaphysics in this regard is more scientific speculation. — jgill

Where is measuring a practical problem? — apokrisis

Metaphysics makes the guesses. Science checks them out — apokrisis

Just like philosophy PhDs are sold as a route to Wall Street – critical thinkers able to break out of the box! — apokrisis

What? You want personal enlightenment for free? Go climb a mountain! — apokrisis

. . . and if institutions of learning did not have such a tendency to exclude conjectures which are perceived to be outside the currently accepted orthodoxy — Janus

Is human philosophy 'constrained' to serve the particular groups of humans who cocreate it on some group level or some genetic level ? Is there a necessary philosophy ? — plaque flag

Anyone else experience that? — TiredThinker

I'm trying to find the simplest words for what I see as the issue — plaque flag

But it's a fact that the practice of philosophy does not much resemble the practice of science. — Srap Tasmaner

There will be debate, and some new tests to replicate the date, but eventually everyone will agree to reshuffle our understanding of the populating of the Americas. Nothing like this is even conceivable in philosophy. — Srap Tasmaner

But it goes further still: to speak at all, to have a thought and draw a conclusion or affirm a conditional or negation is inherently affective. the point I make here is that it is these analytical conditions, which are typical in everyday living, tend to reify the categorical analyses, reducing the world to its own abstract image. The actuality, intuitive givenness of things, if you will, of putting the eyes to the computer screen, . . . — Astrophel

Science hypostatizes this quantifying dimension of reason, and gives us a picture of truth as factual truth, and facts are quantifiable and abide by the law of excluded middle, and do not bear the fluidity of actuality we see in desire, love, pleasure, hate, despair, boredom and the rest. This is THE existential complaint. — Astrophel

whereas my example involves an infinite number of functions in the iteration process. — jgill

What condition do you use to terminate your program? — universeness

Outside the cities I doubt 65% want to move away from the private automobile. — jgill
That’s nice. Unfortunately I prefer going by polling, not personal feelings — Mikie

There is no specific data on the percentage of people in rural areas who would prefer public transportation. However, it is known that rural demographics make public transit increasingly desired. For example, older Americans make up a larger portion of rural populations (17 percent) than in urban populations (13 percent) and rural residents with disabilities rely on public transit- they take about 50 percent more public transit trips than unimpaired people do 1. Additionally, there are 2.9 million rural veterans, making up 33 percent of the veteran population enrolled in the VA health care system. Rural public transit can help them access needed services

68% want a public option; about 65% + favor public transit. — Mikie

If we send two signals to the Mars Rover, spaced at exactly 10 seconds apart, does the Rover receive them in that same time spread?

Yes, and if the two observer walking past each other simultaneously send signals to Andromeda, and then another signal a minute later, they'd get to Andromeda at the same time, and the second signal a minute later, separated by the time it takes light to go however far apart the guys got in that minute. — noAxioms

By the time the light reaches her, she's simply closer to it. She's been walking millions of years towards it already. Once Bill sees the decision happening, for Ann at that point, having walked at 5 m/s for all that time, the light reaching her then is 15 days later and the armada is already on its way. — Benkei