The state of physics is worse than I thought

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:00 am

No, I am not upset. This is my sick idea of fun.

obsrvr524 wrote: not the entity itself.


But even then there is no 'entity itself.' We have no descriptions of the 'entities,' no ideas for what they are. They are values, picked up by the measurements.

obsrvr524 wrote:I agree that a photon is neither wave nor particle. It is actually - physically - a bundle of ultra minuscule EMR that was produced such as to emit the entire bundle in one direction. That has been verified. And it happens for the same reason that lasers work to concentrate light in a single direction (another subject).


Jesus Christ finally, someone.

obsrvr524 wrote:for the item


Indeed, what item?

obsrvr524 wrote:put new information into the statistics


No, you take measurements to find the new information. You cannot even know what the information would look like that wasn't measured, that is, you can't even predict what it would be without measurement. The information only makes sense within the confines of measurement. If you project a hypothetical one, you have to also project the measurement. We don't have two angles on this thing. Those these new theories are providing new angles, like gravity, which previously was not computable as affecting the system. Anything that gives you information on it has to affect it, somehow.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:02 am

What can you know? What you can see. What can you see? Only what you can affect.

That is the paradigm.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:11 am

Aventador wrote:
Aventador wrote:Take Shrodinger's cat.

The mathematics of quantum mechanics, at least at the time, described a state as both X or - AND - Y until it is observed, when it collapses into X or Y. This was a description borne out of necessity, not just to say that you can;t know if it is X or Y until you look, but that you have to assume it is both X and Y for the mathematics to work. Not 'either X or Y because you don't know yet,' but 'both X and Y.

Except that it was in reality NEITHER X or Y in the calculations because it was unknown.

By the way - Schrodinger proposed the mental experiment to demonstrate the absurdity of the ontology. He opposed a quantum ontology.

Shrodinger gave the image of a box with a cat and a poison capsule that would be broken only if the quantum state was X. And that, until you look to see if the quantum state is X or Y, the cat is both alive or AND dead. It is an obvious impossibility used to describe limitations in the math. Not even limitations in the theory or the imagery, but the actual math that worked to compute these things. It was used for that reason, because ti worked. The scientists used their imagination to concieve of the situation they were observing, and designed a mathematical system to describe it, that did describe what it did. So the math was good, but the imagery flawed, and the mathematics, though good, was limited. It was never a comment on the imagery or philosophical implications, the philosophical implications were used as an illustratiion of the limitations of the math. It was not a reflection on reality, but a call to improve the math, an illustration of all the work that was ahead if physics was to advance.


Aventador wrote:What can you know? What you can see. What can you see? Only what you can affect.

That is the paradigm.

You left out - What you can reason (without which you can't know anything). And you can logically deduce many things without ever seeing any of it.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:14 am

obsrvr524 wrote:You left out - What you can reason (without which you can't know anything). And you can logically deduce many things without ever seeing any of it.

Hm. But you can only reason on things that are known about, and logic can only take you so far without actual physical verification.

No logic has arguably been more pristine or, indeed, beautiful than Einstein's, but his conclusions were disproven by physical verification.


And the correction you made in quoting me was correct.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:20 am

In order to predict where X will be in the quantum field using logic, using a hypothetical field that isn't actually there, you have to know what is there. And what is there, is a measurement returned by producing a certain action. Further than this, what is there is not known. There is no theory for what is there, other than strings or information. In real terms, what is actually there is intrinsically linked to what is used to detect it, what it interacts with that reveals it. To ignore the intrinsic nature of this interaction would be to conjecture an entirely different thing, than what is being studied. It is not a particle, it is not a wave, these are the things we do know. and we know this can happen, because we know it happens with photons on that much larger scale where we can verify through different types of measurement.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:24 am

It doesn't mean photons are magic, it just means that they are a more subtle and complicated dynamic than a particle or a wave. Once you look at it closely enough, from enough angles, it stops seeming magical. But it never becomes suddenly clear that it is, in fact, a particle or that it is, in fact a wave, or any of the things previously measured in science. It is simply understood as a new dynamic.

With quantum fields, being so really very small, it causes no confusion in me that arriving at such a detailed level of understanding will take more time, but I also have no trouble realizing that the math is accurate, that it is not a misrepresentation of the behaviour of particles or waves, but a new dynamic that we don't have enough angles on yet to provide a comfortable image of.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:25 am

Aventador wrote:No, I am not upset. This is my sick idea of fun.
obsrvr524 wrote: not the entity itself.

But even then there is no 'entity itself.' We have no descriptions of the 'entities,' no ideas for what they are. They are values, picked up by the measurements.

Measurements of what? - if not of the proposed entity? The results of all measurements pertaining to a proposed entity IS the entity description. What an entity does is what an entity is.

Aventador wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:put new information into the statistics

No, you take measurements to find the new information.

How you got the information is irrelevant - there are passive ways to gain information that do not affect the item being monitored. There are experiments involving exactly that issue - designed specifically to ensure that the item had received no change to it as it was monitored - tricky but they found several ways (I think that was one of the double-slit experiments). One of those experiments led to the erasure theory because the information was recorded but not seen until the next day. The theory was that the next day when the data was seen - the history involving the item instantly changed. Entanglement issues are similar in there conflation of language to try to make a ridiculous postulate seem plausible.


And actually I think photons are much less complicated that a particle (but then that is probably because I know what they both actually are). :D
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:31 am

Yes, I see. Well,

obsrvr524 wrote:Measurements of what?


So, because you can measure the movements of stars, you can know what they are? Nonsense, you can easily take measures without knowing exactly what it is you are measuring.

You don't have to propose anything. You just need an instrument that is sensitive on a certain scale that gives consistent readings.

obsrvr524 wrote:And actually I think photons are much less complicated that a particle


To be fair, I can agree, but it did not seem that way to the first people studying them.

obsrvr524 wrote:(but then that is probably because I know what they both actually are).


Yes, indeed, well, good for you.

obsrvr524 wrote:There are experiments involving exactly that issue - designed specifically to ensure that the item had received no change to it as it was monitored - tricky but they found several ways (I think that was one of the double-slit experiments). One of those experiments led to the erasure theory because the information was recorded but not seen until the next day. The theory was that the next day when the data was seen - the history involving the item instantly changed. Entanglement issues are similar in there conflation of language to try to make a ridiculous postulate seem plausible.


Now it is you that is being dishonest in presenting things that are not actually so obscure and complicated as obscure and complicated. Say you want to detect a photon passing through the slits. Tell me, how do you detect it without absorbing the photon? The photon is a measure of the understanding we have of the way it interacts with other things. There were experiments where they went half way, and affected the photons only slightly as they passed to know they had passed, but the photons were affected by it. Simply not enough to stop them or fully absorb them.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:58 am

Aventador wrote:So, because you can measure the movements of stars, you can know what they are? Nonsense, you can easily take measures without knowing exactly what it is you are measuring.

No. From the movement alone you don't know what they are - just look at ancient history. The only thing you know is that they are something that you can see moving. You have to put together ALL of your measurements together in order to know WHAT the item ACTUALLY is - until then all you know is that it is something that behaves as you have measured - so far. And that process involves reasoning - without good reasoning - you know nothing - you can't even say that it is moving - or even that it exists at all - or that you exist at all. Reasoning is the first thing you have to have.

But another measurement you have already is that the item emits light. And you call whatever it is a "star". Later you find out that it is very very probably a super big ball of fire.

You don't have to propose anything. You just need an instrument that is sensitive on a certain scale that gives consistent readings.

Aventador wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:There are experiments involving exactly that issue - designed specifically to ensure that the item had received no change to it as it was monitored - tricky but they found several ways (I think that was one of the double-slit experiments). One of those experiments led to the erasure theory because the information was recorded but not seen until the next day. The theory was that the next day when the data was seen - the history involving the item instantly changed. Entanglement issues are similar in there conflation of language to try to make a ridiculous postulate seem plausible.

Now it is you that is being dishonest in presenting things that are not actually so obscure and complicated as obscure and complicated.

Please don't call me "dishonest".

Aventador wrote:Say you want to detect a photon passing through the slits. Tell me, how do you detect it without absorbing the photon? The photon is a measure of the understanding we have of the way it interacts with other things. There were experiments where they went half way, and affected the photons only slightly as they passed to know they had passed, but the photons were affected by it. Simply not enough to stop them or fully absorb them.

The totally passive way was to measure the data from the screen then combine that to other things already known - I don't remember all of those details. The photon was never touched by any observing instrument. It was that data - unseen until the next day - that led to the proposal that the situation involving the photons changed to match the data.

But there was more than even that. There were two copies of the data - the second copy wasn't seen either - but magically (through the mystery of entanglement) changed instantly to what the other data reflected - OOOooooo -mysterious - huh.

Well you can read it on Wikipedia -
Wikipedia wrote:Quantum eraser experiment
In quantum mechanics, the quantum eraser experiment is an interferometer experiment that demonstrates several fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics, including quantum entanglement and complementarity. The quantum eraser experiment is a variation of Thomas Young's classic double-slit experiment....
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:13 am

I need to get back to wife, work, wealth, and health - so - MIJOT until next time. :D
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:31 am

obsrvr524 wrote:No. From the movement alone you don't know what they are - just look at ancient history. The only thing you know is that they are something that you can see moving. You have to put together ALL of your measurements together in order to know WHAT the item ACTUALLY is - until then all you know is that it is something that behaves as you have measured - so far.


Yes, that is precisely the point. All we have right now is ONE measurement, ONE type of measurement that we are capable of for that reading.

obsrvr524 wrote:You don't have to propose anything. You just need an instrument that is sensitive on a certain scale that gives consistent readings.


Exactly.

obsrvr524 wrote:Please don't call me "dishonest".


Methinks the gentleman is too sensitive in correlation to the accusations he feels comfortable making. I call them like I see them. No need to get upset.

obsrvr524 wrote:The totally passive way was to measure the data from the screen then combine that to other things already known - I don't remember all of those details. The photon was never touched by any observing instrument.


Well, that is different then. The claim was that it was monitored. The reality was that its traces were detected. In some confusing way that you do not lay out. This is precisely the issue at hand. when you observe directly, so that whatever you are measuring is affected, the reading changes, and it changes because the system changes.

obsrvr524 wrote:But there was more than even that. There were two copies of the data - the second copy wasn't seen either


Again, this is far too vague.

obsrvr524 wrote:Well you can read it on Wikipedia -


I am afraid Wikipedia has proved strenuously lacking even in the simpler things we are discussing, and I have had to rely essentially on my own knowledge. That is alright, the only reason to resort to Wikipedia is the hope that something might be found there worded in simpler terms. When dealing with even light, this is not the case with Wikipedia.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:29 pm

Aventador wrote:I call them like I see them.

And now double-downs - Unfortunate.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:09 pm

Well, maybe you should try not being dishonest.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:28 am

Here's another one for you to lose sleep over:

Modern physics holds that density is a function of surface area, not volume.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, go fucking figure, don't blame me.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:34 am

I think it has to do with the fact that, as discovered through studying black holes, the only way for the entropy that is represented by density to exist is by having entry and exit points throughout the surface, so that the surface will account for 100% of the entropic radiation through which you can determine density, and the volume, which deals with space which is an imaginary expression of quantum field dynamics, is really kind of imaginary. Or rather, since space itself is a variable, an expression of quantum field dynamics, something that is contained in space cannot be a constant indicator of density. If space itself fluctuates, what is contained in space cannot be used to measure, as a measure, accurately, at the quantum field level.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:38 am

I know this gives a lot of people discomfort, but it gives me more and more comfort.

It was always obvious to me that atoms are a schematic representation, not an actual picture. If, when you break down a molecule to the scale of an atom, most of what you see is empty space, evidently, it seemed to me, we are not dealing with "space" anymore. The "space" rules don't apply. Space is not what we are looking at.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:58 am

You will have to start thinking of space as a substance, not even now an outline, like with Einstein, but a substance, space itself, produced by dynamics at a decidedly subatomic level.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:01 am

Coming to think about it, that would also make sense of the paradox of an infinite universe with a limit. Like, what is behind the limit, is the old question?

Now, the universe is still infinite, but after you run out of quantum fields, there is just no more space being produced.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:05 am

And then, of course, it is no mistery that there might be any amount of dimensions, any amount of directions space might get shot in, which then would get stabilized into 3 at a certain scale as its interactions become more massive.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:10 am

You have to understand, the math behind all the shit I'm saying is 100x more accurate than the math used to describe previous explanations for the physical world.

When I say accurate, I mean corresponding to observed physical phenomena.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Great Again » Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:00 am

obsrvr524 wrote:What is the difference between affectance and energy?

Don't they both mean - the ability to change something?
obsrvr524 wrote:To affect means to cause change.

Because of the similarity of "cause" and "affect", you can also say "to cause means to cause a change". The word "affect" and the word "cause" are not completely, but almost completely interchangeable. If you say "to affect means to cause change", you can also say "to cause means to cause change". Well, we all know that both statements may not mean exactly the same thing, but they mean almost exactly the same thing.

obsrvr524 wrote:All of science is built upon ontologies.

"All of science is built upon ontologies", yes, but scientists would never admit that. In fact, it is so much the case, as Heidegger once said, that scientists depend on thinking or philosophy (metaphyics/ontology), because they themselves do not think, are not capable of thinking. Scientists have nothing to do with thinking and do not want it at all, but they are dependent on thinking, and this being dependent is denied by them since their triumph over thinking (philosophy).

obsrvr524 wrote:How do you do that with only "information" - information is the result of an ontology being physically tested for consistency. Information is a tool and dependent entirely on the ontology that was presumed when gathering that information.

Interestingly, the Ancient Greek at the time of the Presocratics, "logos" meant "gathering", but after that it became more and more what we know as "speech", " talk", "lecture", "exposition", became a system with Aristotle and we know it since then as "logic".

If one undertakes a linguistic-historical (philological) investigation, one soon notices that in the course of time the understanding of being has changed fundamentally at least three times. The understanding of being, as it has been attempted since Aristotle by means of the logic system just mentioned, is that which also underlies RM:AO. One can also say that RM:AO has its orientation between the great masters of this system - Aristotle (in the beginning) and Kant or Hegel (in the perfection).

But does that solve the problem that this thread is about?

As I said, a cause can also be defined as "(the ability to cause change is) the ability to change - something".

Ultimately, language (including thinking [including mathematics]) was, is, and will be used here - as always when it comes to knowledge.

Existence is that which has a cause.

Existence is that which has an affect.

In RM:AO it is called "affect", so that it can be applied to psychology and sociology as well.

Existence is that which the Presocratics knew much more directly and of which after them more and more farewell was taken, that's why for a similarly more direct knowledge more and more patience has to be applied (detours have to be accepted).
Last edited by Great Again on Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Great Again
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:22 am

It is probable that the original meaning of the word "affect" was limited to human psychology but nowadays the word can be (and often is) used in the broader sense to refer to an act of something causing change in something else. And that's how James and Observer use the word. To them, affect as a noun is not an emotion but any kind of caused change. When you kick the ball, you affect it -- you cause it to change its position as well as its constitution. So the meaning they assign to the word is not strictly human. It kind of merely means "change". Nothing human about that.

As for its falsifiability, whether or not you affect a ball when you kick it is pretty falsifiable, right? You can easily test it and thus prove it or disprove it.

As far as information-theoretic approach to physics is concerned, I don't really know how they use the word "information". Do they use it the normal way it is used to refer to any portion of reality that represents someone's knowledge (at the very minimum, someone's true beliefs) that thereby has the potential to inform others?
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5231
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:04 am

James S Saint » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:11 pm wrote:Well, maybe its one of those Limy things, but in my circles, we try not to conflate "Effect" with "Affect". :mrgreen:

Effect == the End result
Affect == the Action upon

Or perhaps I should just used the word "influence" and "mutual influence".

Unfortunately, I find that physicists of today, being merely bible-thumpers of another bible, instantly jump into related bible verses, that is.. formulas, and don't realize that energy merely means influence, even if you tell them, over and over and over. So I mention that affectance (influence) means the same as their "energy", but I don't get into trying to make it clear that I am really talking about influence, not that formula variable from their bibles. But yeah, maybe gradually moving from one to the other word might be good. I am making quite a few wording changes on the site. Articulation is my weakness.

"So if energy moves at a finite speed, what would that speed be? It would be the speed from which all other speed is measured for it is the speed of affect, the speed at which things happen, the only absolute speed logically possible."

I like that wording.

And somewhere he explains that back in his time the word "affectance" was used exclusively in the world of psychology to refer to the subtle influences on infants - but he expands its use to include the subtle influences on ALL things.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:14 am

Great Again wrote:the Ancient Greek at the time of the Presocratics, "logos" meant "gathering"

I don't think so. James' explanation seems more credible - the root "log" referred to the immutable - as in a heavy log or to "log" or to document - make secure and undeniable. And Aristotle's "dialectics" - the use of consistent language - became known as "logic" - indisputable statements.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Postby Aventador » Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:17 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:As for its falsifiability, whether or not you affect a ball when you kick it is pretty falsifiable, right? You can easily test it and thus prove it or disprove it.


No, if you didn't affcect it, then you didn't kick it. Affect is implicit in kicking, it is an interpretation of a physical event, applicable to all phyisical events, and not a postulation on an external phenomenon separate from human interpretation. No, it cannot be falsified. No matter what interation takes place, it can be said to be affected, the affectedness of it cannot be broken down, cannot be disproven, it is atomic, it is a thought indicating a thought. And we went over what thoughts are.

Magnus Anderson wrote: Do they use it the normal way it is used to refer to any portion of reality that represents someone's knowledge (at the very minimum, someone's true beliefs) that thereby has the potential to inform others?


Sort of.

I mean yes.

It is an admission that the only referenceability of these readings is our knowledge of them. And it does constitute knowledge, because it is based on readings received from the physical world, external information that was not a theoretical postulation, but an instrumental reaction to the physical world.

obsrvr524 wrote:but he expands its use to include the subtle influences on ALL things.


Yes it is a useful word, can be used to usefully describe many aspects of physical phenomena.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users