Analytic Truth-Value

Ah, but what pompously sumptuous presumptuousness!

How sublimely hateful. But then they need new members for their lil hate fest, despite the help provided.

James is a believer in theoretical constructs. He thinks that forces are farces because they are clearly theoretical constructs that never were anything more than theoretical constructs, whereas affectance is a theoretical construct that is reality itself simply because it’s a part of an all-encompassing theory (which is a pretentious, practically useless, theory with a ridiculously high input/output ratio.) And QM is a fantasy even though it works because it doesn’t describe reality “as it is”. As if theories can ever be anything more than theories – procedures that can generate predictions based on given parameters.

So you tend to attempt to school the other rather than debate the other?

I was the one on topic.
How about actually read threads before you do your judging.

Sounds like a damn good reason.

You have absolutely no clue because you know nothing about it at all.
Yet here you are trying to derate it.
And why?
Certainly not because of your intellect.

RM:AO proves that theories can be “more than just theories”. But you wouldn’t know anything about that.

Theory is a description of a procedure that can be used to generate predictions using given parameters.

Theories can be created any way you want, but if they are to be of practical value, they must be grounded in prior observations – they must be able to predict past events. The greater the number of past events it can predict, the more grounded the theory.

The truth value of a theory is expressed as a set of its predictions that were tested (verified or falsified.)

You can simplify this expression by reducing it to a true/false ratio by dividing the number of verified predictions by the number of falsified predictions.

You can go further and reduce the expression to binary true/false using whatever method you want (one would be using “true” for >=0.5 t/f ratio and “false” for any other ratio.)

Because theories have a universal application, the number of predictions they can generate is infinite. This means that theories have no ultimate truth value. Instead, as its set of tested predictions changes, so does its truth value.

Theories are differentiated not only by their scope – by the range of predictions they can make – but also by the kind of input they take and by the speed with which output is generated.

All-encompassing theories are clumsy because they take too much input and because they take too much time to generate output. They are, for the most part, recreation.

Every instrument has advantages and disadvantages. There is no instrument without disadvantages. Whenever you switch from one instrument to another you are accepting certain trade-off. There is no ultimate instrument.

You can prove that theories are “more than just theories” lol. You totally solved Hume’s problem of induction, didn’t you?

That is called a “hypothesis”.

As we have discussed before … try to get your words right and perhaps others won’t seem as moronic as you acuse. And perhaps you will appear less so to them as well.

You have no idea of what is required of theories.

You are paying way too much of your attention to superficial, irrelevant, distinctions. Wyld was correct. You do not see beyond words. You are a herd animal. Language is everything there is for you.

What is required is determined by need. And there is no universal need.

But being a dumb herd animal that you are, with your longing for belonging, you cannot not believe in universal need.

On the contrary, you do not pay enough attention to relevant distinctions and thus mislead yourself and others. And Wyld will disagree with anything that I say regardless (arrested adolescents are like that).

Nah… It’s just the part of thinking that you are missing most.

If he had said accurate predictions, it would have been theory… I think Magnus understood that to be implied.

No, that wasn’t implied. There is no need to say “accurate predictions”. Any procedure that can be used to generate predictions is a theory even if all of its predictions turn out to be false.

Of course, that does not mean that theories are equal. Among other things, theories are differentiated by their truth value which is expressed as a set of tested predictions. This was covered in my post but was ignored.

Language isn’t perfect. Words have multiple meanings. Naturally, considering that the number of concepts far exceeds the number of words. Words lag behind concepts.

By focusing on words, rather than on concepts they represent, you prove yourself to be a herd animal.

James is a logician, not a philosopher.

Logicians study different ways in which reality can be represented and these representations manipulated. To this end, no external reality is required. Only representations are required, which is to say, only virtual sandbox that is human brain is required.

Philosophers, on the other hand, study external reality. They make observations and then create theories that fit these observations, which is to say, that predict these observations retroactively.

Logicians live in their heads.
Philosophers live in the outside world.

That would be a “metaphysicist”. A logician doesn’t care anything about reality at all, rather merely consistency in the language of reasoning, much the same as a mathematician (logic applied to quantities).

If “the end” was merely a fantasy ontology, you would be right. But there is such a thing as a useful ontology. When an ontology isn’t useful, because it doesn’t represent reality sufficiently, it is ignored (or used merely for fictional stories).

And since your indirect implication is that RM:Affectance Ontology is merely a mental jigsaw puzzle, realize that RM:AO very precisely adheres to the observations of modern Science. The difference is only in the understanding of WHY physics works the way it does, thus extending to answer formerly unresolved questions (such as the Young Double Slit experiment).

Rational Metaphysics requires three fundamental things:

    1. Coherent ontology (utilizing Definitional Logic for clarity)
    1. Scientific methodology (to ensure the ontology tracks reality)
    1. Resolution Debating (so as to ensure that nothing has been left out or mistaken).

All in all, it is more assured to be exactly and precisely true to reality than any form of science or religion has ever been.

This isn’t about what RM:AO is. This is about what theories are. Insofar you insist that theories, fundamentally, are something other than a set of instructions on how to generate predictions given certain parameters, I insist that you are delusional.

Magnus, all a theory is, is a hypothesis that’s been falsified.

I agree with James, that you are defining hypothesis as theory …

I start with a concept then search for a word that best suits it.

Because there are many more concepts than there are words, I am forced to either invent new words or use one and the same word for different concepts. I choose the latter.

Theory as I define it is different from both scientific hypothesis and scientific theory.

My concept of theory is broad.
Scientific concept of theory is specific.
Scientific concept of hypothesis is also specific.

My concept of theory includes both scientific theories and scientific hypotheses. Both are considered theories.

Can’t you understand this?

The goal is to understand what these “things” – hypotheses, theories, etc – fundamentally are. What they have in common.

And each one of them is a procedure that can be used to generate predictions based on some input parameters.

Each one of them has a truth value that is expressed as a set of tested predictions.

Each one of them is universally applicable, meaning, each predicts an infinite number of predictions, meaning, each has a conditional, finite, limited, relative truth value.

None of these “things” are thus absolute unless their scope is limited to a finite number of predictions. (Which again proves that truth is relative, limited, finite, conditional.)

You can stretch hypothesis to theory by saying that the hypothesis is what we call anecdotal evidence, which is still falsified evidence.

But in language, even the concepts anecdotal and statistically significant are separated.

Given this, I don’t think your definition encompasses theory and hypothesis both

You make no sense.

What is falsified evidence? How can you falsify evidence?
What does hypothesis have to do with anecdotal evidence or any other kind of evidence?
What does theory have to do with evidence? not to mention falsified evidence?

Where am I?
What is this place?

Falsified evidence is what conforms an inference about causality between two conceptual observations. Evidence doesn’t have to be falsified to be evidence of something. For example, a blood sample is evidence, but may never be falsified for a crime .