non fingo

[Dan Purgert]

Is this a typo or an understandable use of "non fingo" over here?
<https://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/07/podcast-teaser-open-mic-with-julia.html>

'To quote Newton, "hypothesis non fingo." Everything that comes into
existence may or may not require a cause. Other than quantum events (which I
don't pretend to understand) or the universe (which we can't know) there is
absolutely no known instance of something coming into existence ex nihilo.'

[Jerry Friedman]

"Hypotheses non fingo" is apparently Latin for "I do not make hypotheses," or
maybe another verb would be better than "make", and that's apparently what
Newton wrote. (HypothesEs, not hypothesis, it seems.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Paul Wolff]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, at 15:32:20, Jerry Friedman posted:

You could translate 'non fingo' as "I do not postulate"; or form, shape,
make, mould, model, dress, arrange, train, imagine, suppose, represent,
sketch, invent or fabricate, which are from a Collins Latin dictionary.

Where a potential typo comes into this, I cannot say.
--
Paul

[Dan Purgert]

Jerry Friedman wrote:
> "Hypotheses non fingo" is apparently Latin for "I do not make hypotheses,"

I think I now realize what I did wrong by trying to translate the Latin.
https://translate.google.com/?sl=la&tl=en&text=Hypotheses%20non%20fingo&op=translate
fingo === to imagine (Latin)

The Italian translation gives a more believable response.
https://translate.google.com/?sl=it&tl=en&text=Hypotheses%20non%20fingo&op=translate
fingo === to pretend (Italian)

Perhaps it's Newton's Latin for "I do not /pretend/ to make hypotheses."

[J. J. Lodder]

Newton pretended that his law of gravity was 'proven from experiment'.
(just to pester future philosophers of science of course)

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

On 21/10/21 19:36, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Newton pretended that his law of gravity was 'proven from
> experiment'. (just to pester future philosophers of science of
> course)

In a sense it was, because it was consistent with already-known data for
planetary orbits.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[CDB]

"Touch", basically. Perseus adds "form mentally, represent in thought,
imagine, conceive, think, suppose, express, sketch out".

<http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfingo>

[J. J. Lodder]

Stefan Ram <r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> writes:
> >fingo === to imagine (Latin)
>

> The gist of "fingo":
>
> - to make by shaping (from clay etc.)
> - to produce artificially
> - to mould, knead into shape
> - to form out of original matter, create
> - (of animals) to produce (offsprings)
> - (of sculptors) to create a likeness of
> - to modify the form
> - to change one's appearance
> - to modify the expression of
> - to modify the character or behavior of
> - to adapt, shape
> - to compose
> - to invent/coin
> - to devise, think up, bring about, produce
> - to form a mental picture, visualize
> - to imagine, suppose, assume that
> - to suppose to be, regard as
> - to make up, invent, fabricate
> - to make a pretence of (doing or feeling)
> - to play the part of, pose as
> - to pretend, allege
> - to misrepresent as
> - to assume as a legal fiction
> - to make false or hypocritical
> - to utter or produce insincerely, to forge
>
> Sorry, I had to abbreviate the explanations as I did
> not have the time to type them with all details. So,
> some meanings might be less clear than in my source.
>
> If y'all want to know what Newton meant, read what
> he writes near that quotation, where he explains it.

See wikipedia for example
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo>

Jan

[Rich Ulrich]

What I recall reading, from some philosopher of science,
is that Newton put off publishing on Gravity for 20 years,
because he was not sure that it was correct. Especially about
the moon and tides. (And that part was rejected within 50
years.)

He didn't have the modern notion of communal work on a project.

--
Rich Ulrich

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 21/10/21 19:36, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Newton pretended that his law of gravity was 'proven from
> > experiment'. (just to pester future philosophers of science of
> > course)
>
> In a sense it was, because it was consistent with already-known data for
> planetary orbits.

But Newton did more.
He also predicted planetary perturbations,
which were also promptly confirmed,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:36:54 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 4:19:34 PM UTC-6, Dan Purgert wrote:
> >> > Is this a typo or an understandable use of "non fingo" over here?
> >> > <https://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/07/podcast-teaser-open-mic-
wit
> >h-julia.html>
> >> >
> >> > 'To quote Newton, "hypothesis non fingo." Everything that comes into
> >> > existence may or may not require a cause. Other than quantum events
> >> > (which I don't pretend to understand) or the universe (which we can't
> >> > know) there is absolutely no known instance of something coming into
> >> > existence ex nihilo.'
> >>
> >> "Hypotheses non fingo" is apparently Latin for "I do not make
> >> hypotheses," or maybe another verb would be better than "make", and
> >> that's apparently what Newton wrote. (HypothesEs, not hypothesis, it
> >> seems.)
> >
> >Newton pretended that his law of gravity was 'proven from experiment'.
> >(just to pester future philosophers of science of course)
> >
>
> What I recall reading, from some philosopher of science,
> is that Newton put off publishing on Gravity for 20 years,
> because he was not sure that it was correct.

The problem was that it is not causal, not by standards of his time,
and also by modern standards.

> Especially about the moon and tides.
> (And that part was rejected within 50 years.)

??? What is wrong with it?

> He didn't have the modern notion of communal work on a project.

No, of course not, and why should he?
What 'commune' was Einstein part of while conceiving relativity?

Jan

[Rich Ulrich]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:28:34 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Well. I think I reported what I read, but it could be that I have
reconstructed it wrong. I liked the /point/, that Newton would not
publish some "hypothesis" which might not be true. I think I never
worked out the theories of the tides.

>
>> He didn't have the modern notion of communal work on a project.
>
>No, of course not, and why should he?
>What 'commune' was Einstein part of while conceiving relativity?

Maybe "community" would be a better word for what Einstein
had that Newton lacked. Other people were around who were
concerned with the speed of light.

Did Einstein publish "guesses" or open hypotheses? about anything?
- I really don't know.

But there's a lot of physics today that is fully hypothetical, in
that sense that the proposer has no strong faith that it has
to be the eventual, true description of nature. They give it
to the community for wider discussion and development.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Peter Moylan]

On 22/10/21 03:14, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> [Newton] didn't have the modern notion of communal work on a
> project.

It is well known that Newton said that if he had seen further, it was
because he stood on the shoulders of giants. That sounds just like the
modern concept of science, where advances are made by building on the
work of one's predecessors.

Now it seems likely that Newton didn't mean it that way at all. It was
probably intended as an offensive statement aimed at an opponent who was
short in stature.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 22/10/2021 04:55, Peter Moylan wrote:

<snip>

> Now it seems likely that Newton didn't mean it that way at all. It was
> probably intended as an offensive statement aimed at an opponent who was
> short in stature.

I don't have that problem, being 6'2"; but if I have seen less far than
others it is by standing in the footprints of giants.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Friday, 22 October 2021 at 14:55:16 UTC+11, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 22/10/21 03:14, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> > [Newton] didn't have the modern notion of communal work on a
> > project.
>
> It is well known that Newton said that if he had seen further, it was
> because he stood on the shoulders of giants. That sounds just like the
> modern concept of science, where advances are made by building on the
> work of one's predecessors.

Newton was a humble man. One of his sayings was that beside the vast ocean of knowledge he was collecting pebbles.

>
> Now it seems likely that Newton didn't mean it that way at all. It was
> probably intended as an offensive statement aimed at an opponent who was
> short in stature.

While he certainly crushed down the then dominant Aristotleians, the Einsteinians of his time that is, by not even bothering to climb upon their shoulders, this is a canard certainly. The Einsteinians work hard to corrupt the image of the greatest-ever Englishman. They do not succeed. In Westminster Abbey they throng around Newton's grave, ignoring that of Hawking, who has managed to get squeezed in somewhere on the floor.

Yet, all things, even wrong, may have their uses. I got print publication in 2003 for my work on internal force engines using a new formula relating mass and energy, as the mistakenly journalist thought i was pulling down Newton! Had he not thought so, the pro-Newton publication - for I was updating Newtonian mechanics as opposed to the usual Einsteinian bullshit - would not have happened.

[J. J. Lodder]

Both I think, and the little man was Robert Hooke, iirc.
Newton was well aware that his mathematical developments
were based on those of the ancient Greeks,
and Archimedes in particular.

He was even jealous of them, for he was well aware
that axiomatic Greek mathematics had a rigour
and hence a certainty that his newfangled methods couldn't match.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

It is not that difficult, once you realise that the moon and the earth
both revolved around their common centre of mass.
And yes, Newton and his followers
could only deal with the idealised case
of an all-ocean earth without continents in the way.
(the reality is more complicated)

> >> He didn't have the modern notion of communal work on a project.
> >
> >No, of course not, and why should he?
> >What 'commune' was Einstein part of while conceiving relativity?
>
> Maybe "community" would be a better word for what Einstein
> had that Newton lacked. Other people were around who were
> concerned with the speed of light.

Yes, but Einstein didn't work with them.
He read what they had written, and thought for himself,
until he could publish.
But Newton and contemporaries did have a community.
They wrote a great many letters to each other,
which was the publication medium of their time.
(they also copied letters, and passed them on)

> Did Einstein publish "guesses" or open hypotheses? about anything?
> - I really don't know.

Worse, he -postulated- relativity as the framework for all of physics.

> But there's a lot of physics today that is fully hypothetical, in
> that sense that the proposer has no strong faith that it has
> to be the eventual, true description of nature. They give it
> to the community for wider discussion and development.

So many physicists say that this is no longer physics, really.
It has an atmosphere of crisis around it,

Jan

[Arindam Banerjee]

Indeed, Einstein was the greatest anti-scientific creature of all time.
His bungling has been disastrous, creating hordes of anti and pseudo scientists.
The entire field of physics has been corrupted by his falsehoods.

> > But there's a lot of physics today that is fully hypothetical, in
> > that sense that the proposer has no strong faith that it has
> > to be the eventual, true description of nature. They give it
> > to the community for wider discussion and development.
> So many physicists say that this is no longer physics, really.
> It has an atmosphere of crisis around it,

That crisis will grow till political and social pressures cause it to burst.

Since they are all cowardly racists and bigots wrapped in hypocrisy and opportunism, they will neglect the sane and brilliant physics that I have produced in the field of physics for the last 22 years - for my physics continue with the Newtonian approach, and totally dismiss the so-called modern physics. Which is a pack of lies, bizarre and ridiculous too.
Anyway, all bad things come to an end, so the "modern physics" crap will come to an end. Last year I wrote about the cause of gravity, and the way the universe works, in grand cyclical manner relating to novas and supernovas. All there, in sci.physics.

This year, I repeated the experiments relating to my earlier work, that is moving a body with internal force created by current, thus breaking the Newtonian laws, outing the conservation of energy law, let alone that of conservation of mass and energy! Entropy, relativity, quantum - all bunkum, now.

Now let us see... Practical use must be made of scientific breakthroughs, what.



>
> Jan

[Arindam Banerjee]

Nicola Tesla on the theory of relativity, the cause of misdirection in physics:
Theory of relativity is a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a king and a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the techniques of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.
The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. Its exponents are very brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.

[J. J. Lodder]

The verb 'fingeren' is still current in modern Dutch.
(from Latin of course)

For example in 'een gefingeerd adres'
(e. a made up, a fictional, so a false adress)

English 'to finger' is something else of course.
(that translated to Dutch 'vingeren')

False friends everywhere,

Jan

[Ken Blake]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants
which says "But its most familiar and popular expression is attributed
by Isaac Newton in 1675: 'If I have seen further it is by standing on
the shoulders of Giants,'" and note the word "attributed." Like so many
such things, it's at least possible that he never said it.

If he did say it, it doesn't seem likely to me that it is an offensive
statement aimed at an opponent who was short in stature. If that's what
it was, wouldn't he have said "standing on the shoulders of *a* giant"?

Also note "attributed by." It should be "attributed to."


--
Ken

[Sam Plusnet]

On 22-Oct-21 6:46, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 04:55, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Now it seems likely that Newton didn't mean it that way at all. It was
>> probably intended as an offensive statement aimed at an opponent who was
>> short in stature.
>
> I don't have that problem, being  6'2"; but if I have seen less far than
> others it is by standing in the footprints of giants.

In the Land of the Far-seeing Giants, the short person with a
step-ladder is king.


--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK

[Jerry Friedman]

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 11:46:58 PM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 04:55, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Now it seems likely that Newton didn't mean it that way at all. It was
> > probably intended as an offensive statement aimed at an opponent who was
> > short in stature.

> I don't have that problem, being 6'2"; but if I have seen less far than
> others it is by standing in the footprints of giants.

I once saw a T-shirt that said "Giants are standing on my shoulders."

--
Jerry Friedman

[Rich Ulrich]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:13:10 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Lodder) wrote:

>Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:28:34 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >

>> >>
>> >> What I recall reading, from some philosopher of science,
>> >> is that Newton put off publishing on Gravity for 20 years,
>> >> because he was not sure that it was correct.
>> >

>>

>> Maybe "community" would be a better word for what Einstein
>> had that Newton lacked. Other people were around who were
>> concerned with the speed of light.
>
>Yes, but Einstein didn't work with them.
>He read what they had written, and thought for himself,
>until he could publish.
>But Newton and contemporaries did have a community.
>They wrote a great many letters to each other,
>which was the publication medium of their time.
>(they also copied letters, and passed them on)

Okay, I knew that they passed around letters.

Were they working together to discover truths, or were
they passing around their own, confirmed successes? My
impression is that they worked on their own projects, open
to new ideas, but without much that looks like active collaboration.

In particular -
Did Newton share his ideas about gravity in those letters, at
any time during those 20 years that he had a completed theory
and yet harbored doubts?

>
>> Did Einstein publish "guesses" or open hypotheses? about anything?
>> - I really don't know.
>
>Worse, he -postulated- relativity as the framework for all of physics.
>
>> But there's a lot of physics today that is fully hypothetical, in
>> that sense that the proposer has no strong faith that it has
>> to be the eventual, true description of nature. They give it
>> to the community for wider discussion and development.
>
>So many physicists say that this is no longer physics, really.
>It has an atmosphere of crisis around it,

Hmm. On the one hand, it sounds like Physics-with-humility,
searching for the best models -- best predictions with the
fewest "degrees of freedom" in the explanation. Without
prejudice, without absolutes. Yes, Einstein has seemed to
have had some humility.

On the other hand, a few physicists I have known or read about
might regard "humility" as an indicator of crisis.

--
Rich Ulrich

[J. J. Lodder]

One of the things they did was pose problems for solving.
Both things they wanted solved and things they had already solved
without telling the world.
Solutions were sometimes given anonymously.
(but those in the know could sometimes recognise a lion by his claw)

> In particular -
> Did Newton share his ideas about gravity in those letters, at
> any time during those 20 years that he had a completed theory
> and yet harbored doubts?

Newton was both notoriously secretive,
and fierce about his priority.

> >> Did Einstein publish "guesses" or open hypotheses? about anything?
> >> - I really don't know.
> >
> >Worse, he -postulated- relativity as the framework for all of physics.
> >
> >> But there's a lot of physics today that is fully hypothetical, in
> >> that sense that the proposer has no strong faith that it has
> >> to be the eventual, true description of nature. They give it
> >> to the community for wider discussion and development.
> >
> >So many physicists say that this is no longer physics, really.
> >It has an atmosphere of crisis around it,
>
> Hmm. On the one hand, it sounds like Physics-with-humility,
> searching for the best models -- best predictions with the
> fewest "degrees of freedom" in the explanation. Without
> prejudice, without absolutes. Yes, Einstein has seemed to
> have had some humility.

Certainly.

> On the other hand, a few physicists I have known or read about
> might regard "humility" as an indicator of crisis.

The crisis is in failure to produce results,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

No problem, if you had the foresight to dig a foxhole,
somewhere in that footprint,

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

The Fakawi tribe relied on climbing trees.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 3:55:27 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:13:10 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:

> >But Newton and contemporaries did have a community.
> >They wrote a great many letters to each other,
> >which was the publication medium of their time.
> >(they also copied letters, and passed them on)
>
> Okay, I knew that they passed around letters.
>
> Were they working together to discover truths, or were
> they passing around their own, confirmed successes? My
> impression is that they worked on their own projects, open
> to new ideas, but without much that looks like active collaboration.

Was this exceptional by the 1810s?

Champollion could not have "deciphered the Rosetta Stone" if
Thomas Young hadn't sent him, from England, a copy of an
inscription with the name of Cleopatra in Greek and hieroglyphs.
(The only Royal Name preserved in the Rosetta hieroglyphs is
Ptolemy, and with just one name, he couldn't assign sounds to
the individual characters making up the name. Royal names
were written inside a border, long called a cartouche.)

[CDB]

On 10/22/2021 9:06 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Paul Wolff <boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>> Jerry Friedman posted:

"Non fingo fingos", frex.

--
Fingi, fingorum, fingis, fingos, bingo!

[Ken Blake]

Where?


--
Ken

[Peter Moylan]

Most people can skip this post, but for those who have never heard the
story ...

The Fakawi are pigmies who live in a region with very long grass. That
means that they can rarely work out where they are. Every so often they
bump into a tree. Then one of of them will climb the tree, look around,
and shout out:

"We're the Fakawi".

[Ken Blake]

In the version I first heard, I didn't remember their being pygmies and
didn't remember their climbing trees, but I remember its being spelled
"Fugawi" and their getting their name by being misheard crying out
"Where the Fuck are we?"


--
Ken

[Arindam Banerjee]

Not being scientists at all, only mumbo-jumboists sustained by patrons who want to retain their metaphysics, crude ad hominem is the only resort of the Einstienian devils. Hawking tried to be good at back-stabbing Newton in his worthless book on Time. That was the only thing that made sense, in its own disgraceful way.

[Stoat]

Fugawi was the name of various mapping programs, now made redundant by
Google Maps and other free products.


--brian

--
Wellington
New Zealand

[J. J. Lodder]

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not being scientists at all, only mumbo-jumboists sustained by patrons who
> want to retain their metaphysics, crude ad hominem is the only resort of
> the Einstienian devils.

Tiens!

Jan

--
"Tiens! Deze stuitende figuur is niets te dol"
(Querulijn Xaverius, Markies de Canteclaer van Barneveldt de Basse-Cour)

[Ken Blake]

A good name for a mapping program, but I had never heard of it before.


--
Ken