18 Apr 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrwell some would say that our reality is very 'sick' - but that's a different story.
This is what Kant called 'an sich' reality.
yes i rather like the idea of absolutes (mind-independent reality as you suggested) and our striving towards them. however, i wonder if it can ever be done with our normal perceptions and tools.
Originally posted by bbarr
What the hell are you guys talking about!
no doubt all of the above and possibly much more, i think 🙄
18 Apr 03
Originally posted by pradtfIt's not that easy, pradtf. Of the options presented in my post above, which are you talking about. Do you mean that physics is temporally, logically, pragmatically prior to mathematics. And what counts as an instance of physics, what counts as an instance of mathematics? Or, better, what are the minimal conditions somthing has to satisfy to be an instance of physics or of mathematics? Unless y'all are just putzing around in this thread, I think some clarification is in order.
no doubt all of the above and possibly much more, i think 🙄
19 Apr 03
Originally posted by bbarri think there is a lot of putzing around - remember what started it all (from the animal experiments thread). i know i have my own agenda (that i haven't gotten around to yet), and no doubt others do as well.
Unless y'all are just putzing around in this thread, I think some clarification is in order.
but by all means, if you want to establish some parameters, do so and that will no doubt clarify things for those who choose to accept them.
by the way, what is abductive reasoning?
19 Apr 03
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfIf the people who are debating this issue aren't concerned with making sense, who am I to impose parameters upon them? I figured from your posts that you, at least, would endeavor for clarity, alas...
i think there is a lot of putzing around - remember what started it all (from the animal experiments thread). i know i have my own agenda (that i haven't gotten around to yet), and no doubt others do as well.
but by all means, if you wan ...[text shortened]... choose to accept them.
by the way, what is abductive reasoning?
Abductive reasoning is inference to the best explanation. When we advert to the simplicity or ontological elegance of a theory, its predictive power and fruitfulness, consistency with other theories, etc., and accept or reject it on these bases, then we are engaged in abductive reasoning.
19 Apr 03
Originally posted by bbarrso that means the theory has to exist and be evaluated. whereas inductive and deductive reasoning help formulate the theory in the first place. am i correct or should i read up on this?
Abductive reasoning is inference to the best explanation. When we advert to the simplicity or ontological elegance of a theory, its predictive power and fruitfulness, consistency with other theories, etc., and accept or reject it on these bases, then we are engaged in abductive reasoning.
If the people who are debating this issue aren't concerned with making sense, who am I to impose parameters upon them? I figured from your posts that you, at least, would endeavor for clarity, alas...
well i never was much good at handling alases (sticky stuff). how about giving me 1 more day to amuse myself and then we'll set specific parameters and i at least will follow them. it will no doubt be a good thing for all. sunday will be parameter day.
19 Apr 03
Originally posted by pradtfIn one of its applications, yes. When you have internally coherent competeing theories each of which consistent with the evidence, then neither inductive nor deductive reasoning are particularly helpful in determining the theory most rational to accept. The creation 'science'/evolution debate is like this. Creationism is consistent with all observed evidence, in fact it is consistent with all possible evidence. The creationist can claim for any putative disconfirming evidence that 'God placed the evidence there to test our faith', as has been claimed about the fossil record in certain Christian Science pseudo-journals. Of course creationism would be irrational to adopt as a scientific theory, but why is this? Primarily, creationism is irrational to adopt because its impossible to disconfirm, but also because it doesn't allow for successful prediction and is inconsistent with other bodies of theory. Since creationism is internally coherent, and doesn't violate any Bayesian rules of inductive inference, on what grounds are we justified in preferring evolutionary theory? Well, many philosophers of science claim that it is rational to adopt the theory that best explains the phenomena at issue, that is, to evaluate competing theories on the abductive criteria specified above.
so that means the theory has to exist and be evaluated. whereas inductive and deductive reasoning help formulate the theory in the first place. am i correct or should i read up on this?
[b]If the people who are debating this issue aren't concerned with making sense, who am I to impose parameters upon them? I figured from your posts that you, at least, wo ...[text shortened]... least will follow them. it will no doubt be a good thing for all. sunday will be parameter day.
Hooray for parameter day, when all will become clear!
19 Apr 03
Originally posted by bbarrthank you for taking the time to explain abductive reasoning. i also did a little web search and was surprised to see how many diverse areas it is applied in.
In one of its applications, yes. ...
i guess the pick-the-simplest theory, all other things being equal, is an example of abductive reasoning.
also, i suppose abductive reasoning is often necessitated because sometimes there may be several theories each of which explain only part of the data so some process of selection is reequired.
19 Apr 03
Originally posted by AcolyteYou reinforce my point to a T. You keep referring to "greeks" and "he" and "him". No "he" or "him" <which requires physical universe, ie physics> no math. (at least not "his" math) Thanks for supporting my heresy. 😏 Seriously, this all goes back to the questions of philosophy,physics and the universe itself ... "What is mind that we should be mindful of it... and who are we to judge?" < i know it's circular... that is the point. > Life is tough and then you die.😲 It is my bet that nobody alive today (or probably ever) will die with a COMPLETE understanding of exactly what the universe OR mathematics truly is. As to gods and devils... i'll take care of mine. You handle yours.
Heresy! For example, the ancient Greeks had maths long before any sensible concept of physics had emerged. One of the great philosophers (Aristotle?) reckoned that arrows fell to earth because it was their 'natural' home, because wood consists mostly of earth, one of the four elements! Didn't stop him doing geometry, though, and that can be made quite ...[text shortened]... I'm afraid you can't kill them; as soon as you lower your guard, they'll come back for more!
19 Apr 03
Originally posted by bbarrMathematics, as I have stressed, is the clarification of logical consequences of arbitrary axioms. As such, physics is a branch of mathematics that is based on empirical axioms and allows certain techniques (observation) that are not associated with mathematics but are a very real part of it. In mathematics, practically speaking, there is a lot of hard observation and conjecture on which we base our ideas, and logic to prove them. In physics, experimentation is used to observe phenomena, but only theoretical methods explain them. So physics is a part of mathematics, as evidenced by the Greek translation of "mathematics"-"matters learned".
And what counts as an instance of physics, what counts as an instance of mathematics? Or, better, what are the minimal conditions somthing has to satisfy to be an instance of physics or of mathematics?
19 Apr 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAh right, you're working to a different definition of physics than me. I took 'physics' to mean the model we have produced of the universe, rather than the universe itself; similarly with mathematics. Not a deep philosophical point, but a question of nomenclature. I'm not going to discuss what is and isn't possible in the absence of a universe, because that's silly.
You reinforce my point to a T. You keep referring to "greeks" and "he" and "him". No "he" or "him" <which requires physical universe, ie physics> no math. (at least not "his" math) Thanks for supporting my heresy. 😏 Seriously, this all goes back to the questions of philosophy,physics and the universe itself ... "What is mind that we shou ...[text shortened]... rse OR mathematics truly is. As to gods and devils... i'll take care of mine. You handle yours.
19 Apr 03
Originally posted by royalchickenI disagree. Physics and maths are made distinct by the different type of proof required. A scientific 'proof' is usually unacceptable in mathematics (unless it's proof by exhaustion!), and a mathematical proof is often distrusted in physics (the nature of physics means that you usually have to make many assumptions to construct a mathematical proof, and these assumptions may be suspect.) It's true that physics features maths, but in isolated pieces, binding together much theory which cannot be justified mathematically; also maths features empirical observations, but these serve to disprove hypotheses by counter-example, and to illustrate, suggest and inspire theorems, not to prove them (again, unless by exhaustion.)
Mathematics, as I have stressed, is the clarification of logical consequences of arbitrary axioms. As such, physics is a branch of mathematics that is based on empirical axioms and allows certain techniques (observation) that are not associated with mathematics but are a very real part of it. In mathematics, practically speaking, there is a lot of har ...[text shortened]... rt of mathematics, as evidenced by the Greek translation of "mathematics"-"matters learned".
In physics, 'theoretical methods' involve creating a model; such a model cannot be induced directly from observations, only discredited by observations that contradict it. It cannot be proven mathematically (maths only makes sense within a model); the best we can do is give it a 'scientific proof' by using it to make specific predictions which contradict those of the previous model, and conducting experiments which are consistent with these predictions. It's akin to seeing a finite number of terms of a sequence of numbers of unknown provenance, and trying to work out what the whole sequence is; you have to apply such non-mathematical tools as Occam's Razor (glorified common sense) to get a plausible answer, no matter how many terms you can see. Mathematically, the question 'what is the next term in the sequence?' is a non-starter.
Like 'philosophy', 'mathematics' has since taken on a more specific meaning.
19 Apr 03
Originally posted by UncleAdamno-i presume not as you are thinking of momentum (i.e. you apply a force to two identicle masses but one is moving faster than the other then the faster one takes longer to stop) but i don't think this happens with temperature...😛 but i'm not sure
is it because the hot water loses heat faster then the cool water?