Equation of a natural phenomenon
V.Gopal
paper, or a figure drawn on a sheet of paper help help us to foresee
(calculate or predict) something about any reality that is
symbolically represented (put) on paper? I do not think so. A reality
can be in a state of change, but its symbolic representative on paper
can never be in a state of change. Then how can the expression on
paper correspond to a change that does take place out side the paper
and cannot take place on paper? This negative aspect of symbolic (or
applied) mathematics has to be accepted as true in all sciences
including physics.
dave odden
> Can a symbolic expression or a formula written down on a piece of
> paper, or a figure drawn on a sheet of paper help help us to foresee
> (calculate or predict) something about any reality that is
> symbolically represented (put) on paper?
Yes.
> I do not think so. A reality
> can be in a state of change, but its symbolic representative on paper
> can never be in a state of change. Then how can the expression on
> paper correspond to a change that does take place out side the paper
> and cannot take place on paper?
Reality never changes. However, some events are sensitive to time, i.e. the
dog is sitting on my foot right now (9:55pm EST, 28/10/2002), and probably
will not be in 2 minutes. The dog-foot-sitting at that time will remain true
and a fact of reality, end of story. A symbolic statement that fails to
capture the relevance of time is therefore just plain wrong. However, some
things like conservation of charge don't give a rats ass about time (me
waiting to get hammered by the physicists....).
> This negative aspect of symbolic (or
> applied) mathematics has to be accepted as true in all sciences
> including physics.
No.
malenor
"dave odden" <od...@ling.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:wPmv9.100030$kF.16...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> > Then how can the expression on
> > paper correspond to a change that does take place out side the paper
> > and cannot take place on paper?
>
> Reality never changes.
How Parmenidean. Now let's hear from the Heraclitean Objectivists....
Jeff Evans
news:38af3945.02102...@posting.google.com...
So, symbolic expressions cannot accurately represent reality? I suppose the
space shuttle was designed without a single mathematical operator being
used. And I'm quite certain that when I wake up tomorrow, the concept of
differentiation will help me determine how to best maximize the volume of my
field with a given amount of fencing. To be sure, there are some elements
of "reality" which are too complicated or not well-enough-understood to be
modeled by symbolic expressions, but to deny that mathematics has any basis
in solving real world problems is downright nutty.
--
Jeff Evans
"I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the
sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -John Galt from
Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"
Remove .NOSPAM for email.
blazingmuse
Most physical theories cover objects that show consistent properties,
that is, ones that don't change arbitrarily over time. The set of
reactions they will have to definiteperturbations or disturbances will
reamin identical, disregarding the time variable, as long as they
exist.
V.Gopal
kF.16...@twister.columbus.rr.com>...
sensible changes are illusion (and also irreversibility is an
illusion, therefore all changes are reversible) is a premise (or a
symplifying assumption) or a conclusion. I am sure "reality never
changes" or "irreversibility is an illusion" cannot be a conclusion.
We have two problems: we cannot express and communicate 'state of
change' and all mathematical calculations are reversible.
It is strange that we accept 'something' that is neither a conclusion
nor a fact of life, as true - you are telling me to accept that the
destruction of WTC is either an illusion or a change that is
reversible! If this is a fact then why should we believe in GOD? Are
we seeking knowledge from illusion in order to apply it to illusion?
Progress in technology does not prove that we have understood nature.
Progress is through experiments and 'trial and error' and 'course
corrections'. If reality never changes then 'progress in technology'
is neither true nor necessary.
dave odden
> I cannot understand whether "reality never changes", which means all
> sensible changes are illusion (and also irreversibility is an
> illusion, therefore all changes are reversible) is a premise (or a
> symplifying assumption) or a conclusion.
It is a premise, based on the meaning of "reality" as "that which exist" (to
use an ungrammatical tenseless form). In other words, as I understand the
concept "reality", it encompasses more than "the state of the universe at
this one moment in time"
> We have two problems: we cannot express and communicate 'state of
> change' and all mathematical calculations are reversible.
The latter statement about mathematics is untrue: for example the mod
function, the absolute value function, and so on
> you are telling me to accept that the
> destruction of WTC is either an illusion or a change that is
> reversible!
I said neither. It was not an illusion. It is certainly repairable (i.e.
rebuildable). Whether or not time can be caused to flow backwards is a
scientific question, so I have no opinion on that front.
> If this is a fact then why should we believe in GOD?
But I don't. So that puts paid to that argument.
> Progress in technology does not prove that we have understood nature.
It could indicate that we know something that we didn't know, or that we got
lucky and don't understand how we did it.
> Progress is through experiments and 'trial and error' and 'course
> corrections'. If reality never changes then 'progress in technology'
> is neither true nor necessary.
What? You're confusing changes in knowledge with changes in reality.
malenor
> V.Gopal wrote:
>
> > I cannot understand whether "reality never changes", which means all
> > sensible changes are illusion (and also irreversibility is an
> > illusion, therefore all changes are reversible) is a premise (or a
> > symplifying assumption) or a conclusion.
>
> It is a premise, based on the meaning of "reality" as "that which exist"
(to
> use an ungrammatical tenseless form). In other words, as I understand the
> concept "reality", it encompasses more than "the state of the universe at
> this one moment in time"
>
Yes, I agree, and that "encompassing" is something you cannot know,
anymore than Heraclitus can prove the opposite view from his
own supposedly holistic/omniscient viewpoint.
That is why I mentioned Heraclitus before in response to your
Parmenidean comment. Objectivists are split into two camps over
this issue, but both sides surmise that they can "know the whole"
well enough to assert that it is either changeless, or changing.
Objectivists try to reverse the intellectual trend toward such
holistic thinking instead of away from it as they should.
dave odden
> That is why I mentioned Heraclitus before in response to your
> Parmenidean comment. Objectivists are split into two camps over
> this issue, but both sides surmise that they can "know the whole"
> well enough to assert that it is either changeless, or changing.
> Objectivists try to reverse the intellectual trend toward such
> holistic thinking instead of away from it as they should.
If you have some spare time to burn and feel merciful, you could briefly
educate me about this matter (presume no prior knowledge of philosophical
traditions on my part, 'cuz I'm not a philosopher). I know I can look it up,
but I probably won't get to it this year at the current rate
Dave O'Hearn
This is why the symbolic expressions have variables.
Regardless of that, there is such a thing as engineering, and people
have been doing it for thousands of years. People use "expressions" to
make good predictions about reality all the time, and they also
abstract expressions out of reality. It is not even very hard. If you
have some theory that says there is no such thing as engineering, or
that engineering is pointless or does not work, that is a problem with
your theory, not with engineering.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Malenor
whose diametrically opposed theories found their synthesis in Aristotle's.
(But then, there are those who will claim they were not really
diametrically opposed, for Heraclitus held that chaos was a
permanent feature of the universe.)
I should add that Objectivists are not *explicitly* split into two camps
over this issue, but it is an observable fact that, depending on which
ones you speak to, you can get an answer to the question either way.
But when confronted with such contradictions, they rationalize it away
as "mere academics." However, "Rand" herself did not rationalize
that way at all, in fact she considered such philosophical questions to
be of extreme relevance to everyday human existence. So it just
seems ironic that Objectivists have turned away from the academic,
and only when they feel like it, when their own founder was billed as
philosophy's greatest sales(wo)man.
dave odden
> But when confronted with such contradictions, they rationalize it away
> as "mere academics." However, "Rand" herself did not rationalize
> that way at all, in fact she considered such philosophical questions to
> be of extreme relevance to everyday human existence. So it just
> seems ironic that Objectivists have turned away from the academic,
> and only when they feel like it, when their own founder was billed as
> philosophy's greatest sales(wo)man.
Ironic is extremely generous. I would disagree that it is a characteristic
of all Objectivists (if you meant that) and I have an existence-disproof of
the strongest statement. I'm fairly certain that it's a defining feature of
ARIans that they reject "academic hair splitting" and what Rand refers to as
"chewing" on a concept. It's completely unclear to me whether they
constitute the majority of people who label themselves as Objectivists, or
are they just a highly visible minority.
Malenor
> Ironic is extremely generous. I would disagree that it is a characteristic
> of all Objectivists (if you meant that) and I have an existence-disproof
of
> the strongest statement. I'm fairly certain that it's a defining feature
of
> ARIans that they reject "academic hair splitting" and what Rand refers to
as
> "chewing" on a concept. It's completely unclear to me whether they
> constitute the majority of people who label themselves as Objectivists, or
> are they just a highly visible minority.
>
>
I don't paint with broad strokes like you suggested, however my experience
*in this group* at least has been that whenever an Objectivist (Randroid,
ARIan, whatever) is defeated on intellectual grounds, suddenly "the issue
was only academic anyway."
Acar
> Malenor wrote:
> I'm fairly certain that it's a defining feature of
> ARIans that they reject "academic hair splitting" and what Rand refers to
as
> "chewing" on a concept. It's completely unclear to me whether they
> constitute the majority of people who label themselves as Objectivists, or
> are they just a highly visible minority.
The majority of Objectivists do not understand Objectivism. That, as opposed
to reason, is Objectivism's principal means of survival.
x
V.Gopal
charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
reality changes. Knowledge is not information. Knowledge is that which
helps us to find the means of achieving our goal and foresee things in
advance.
If you do not believe in the existence of GOD it means no body can
kill you and you can defy death. Even the greatest scientists who talk
about Origin of the Universe and Theory of everything, believe in the
existence of GOD. It is a miracle that science is possible. The
scientists talk like The Creator, but matter re-created (conceived)
form knowledge about it des not and will never possess, exhibit and
provide the same knowledge again. The fact that we have to begin with
the premise that all changes are illusion and reversible proves that
we have failed to realize The Truth.
dave odden
> If knowledge is The Truth
And it isn't. You can have knowledge OF the truth, and that knowledge may be
better or worse. But it shouldn't be confused for *being* the truth.
> If you do not believe in the existence of GOD it means no body can
> kill you and you can defy death.
That's comforting. Although I hadn't thought in terms of my newly discovered
infinite lifespan, in terms of retirement planning. So apparently, only
taxes are certain.
ActualGeek
Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
Well, this objectivist understand enough that if you want to make such
a case, you would be better serverd by providing some reason to believe
it!
Acar
"ActualGeek" <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-BE5FF...@corp.supernews.com...
Read hpo. Practically every Objectivist suscribes to a different version.
Plus Leonard Peikoff claims that David Kelley does not understand
Objectivism, plus ARI adherents claim that Rand was mistaken when she said
that Nathaniel Branden understood Objectivism at the time. This means that
they accuse Rand of failing to understand Objectivism! Plus many
Objectivists oppose the nuclear anihilation of Teheran while others advocate
it. But more importantly there are profound implications of Objectivism that
the innocents don't even suspect. But since I'm not about to write an essay,
don't take my word. With my word and that of others, caviat emptor.
x
x
x
x
V.Gopal
.489...@twister.columbus.rr.com>...
of the world is the truth and that 'change' is part of the truth. I
believe that we
'receive' knowledge from our sensible experiences and that 'knowledge'
is part of our conscious mind. The term 'of the truth' places 'the
truth' out side our mind-body complex for ever. We also begin by
assuming that the intelligible world is immutable. Then what is the
essential characteristic of the truth, that becoms our Endless
'knowledge'?
dave odden
> I
> believe that we
> 'receive' knowledge from our sensible experiences and that 'knowledge'
> is part of our conscious mind.
Yes, except I presume you meant "from our sensory experiences", not
"sensible". And also it would be more accurate to say that we construct
knowledge based on those sensory inputs and some kind of mental processing,
like "reason", whereupon it becomes part of the conscious mind.
> The term 'of the truth' places 'the
> truth' out side our mind-body complex for ever.
Okay. But I think you'd be better served, in the pursuit of truth, by
speaking of reality and knowledge. There is a reality, our goal is to know
it, and wishing doean't make it so (or not so). Metaphysics and epistemology
are different enough that the difference should be reinforced with separate
words (reality and knowledge). It's easy to slip into Platonic views of
disembodied knowledge floating in a glowing orb on some higher plane (I
presume it's higher and not lower).
> We also begin by
> assuming that the intelligible world is immutable.
I don't know what you mean by "immutable". "Change" is a statement about
conditions at different times; I don't think anyone ever believes that we
are in a stasis field. People may, though, think that the changes you see in
the world are "non-essential" differences.
> Then what is the
> essential characteristic of the truth, that becoms our Endless
> 'knowledge'?
I yam what I yam, sez Popeye the sailor man. Or, A=A. Or, some comment about
my grandmother and her gonads.
V.Gopal
90659.6...@posting.google.com>...
elements have certain properties that are predictable with absolute
certainty and zero error. When we talk of behaviour, only the
'behaviour' of electromagnetic and gravitational fields are
predictable with certainty. If we cannot predict the result of
interaction between objects on objects themselves, it means we know
nothing about objects themselves. What purpose do the formulae serve
if they do not predict the result of interaction between objects on
objects themselves?
blazingmuse
> elements have certain properties that are predictable with absolute
> if they do not predict the result of interaction between objects on
> objects themselves?
This is the fault of the measurements used to provide initial
conditions for the model under prediction, not the model itself. Go
ask Heisenburg for a refund.