Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #466929 > unrolled thread

Rub Odd's nose in it.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 02:13 -0400
    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sd> - 2018-08-05 12:08 +0000
    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 13:06 +0000
      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:10 -0400
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 18:57 +0000
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:33 -0400
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:07 +0000
              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:23 -0400
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 22:43 +0000
                  Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:39 -0400
                    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:45 +0000
                      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:50 -0400
    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-05 08:27 -0500
      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sg> - 2018-08-05 14:13 +0000
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:23 -0400
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sg> - 2018-08-05 17:47 +0000
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:32 -0400
              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hp> - 2018-08-06 18:05 +0000
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:15 -0400
                  Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-07 09:21 +0000
                    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-08-07 08:36 -0400
      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:17 -0400
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 18:57 +0000
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-05 13:20 -0700
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:39 -0400
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-06 19:22 -0500
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-05 18:41 -0500
      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-05 22:50 -0500
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:51 -0400
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 13:08 -0500
    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-07 11:40 +1000
      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 01:49 +0000
      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:53 -0400
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-07 10:02 +0000
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-07 08:55 -0500
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:05 -0400
        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-07 11:24 -0500
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 16:56 +0000
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:04 -0400
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 09:05 +0200
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-08 17:14 +1000
              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 10:34 -0400
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 20:16 +0200
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-09 09:15 +1000
                  Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 19:57 -0400
                    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-09 11:48 +1000
                      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 11:02 -0400
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-08 11:08 -0500
              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 13:23 -0400
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 20:26 +0200
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-09 10:15 -0500
                  Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 12:48 -0400
                    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-11 23:37 -0500
                      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenvhw.ho> - 2018-08-12 11:31 +0000
                        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenvhw.ho> - 2018-08-12 11:34 +0000
                      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 10:09 -0400
                        Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-12 21:29 -0500
                          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-13 10:53 +0000
                            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-13 04:08 -0700
                          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 11:41 -0400
                            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 10:02 -0700
                              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 17:36 +0000
                                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-13 10:45 -0700
                            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-15 18:56 -0500
                              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 06:29 -0700
            Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 23:55 +0000
              Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 10:58 -0400
                Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 15:26 +0000
                  Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 12:36 -0400
                    Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 17:53 +0000
                      Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-09 11:21 -0700
          Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-08 11:12 +0000
    Rub Odd's nose in it. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-16 20:34 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#467280

On 8/08/2018 10:04 AM, benj wrote:
> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
>>
>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and 
>> models.
>>
>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no 
>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of 
>>> fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of 
>>> fields whose value is simply zero?
>>
>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you 
>> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a 
>> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in 
>> which it is zero (which really never happens).
>>
>>      As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> 
> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector 
> field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term vector field 
> because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field which 
> is something else entirely, right?)
> 
> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a 
> vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them)
> in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists 
> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at every 
> point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose NOT to 
> define a field in that space (reality is determined by my imagination, 
> right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a coordinate 
> system, unless I choose not to define one of those either, in which case 
> there is no subspace existing at all and I win, right?
> 
> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in 
> Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to 
> describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by 
> charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if they 
> were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are real, models are 
> fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there are no forces present in 
> the subspace. People use the terminology that there are no "fields" 
> there but as seen above that is mathematically wrong on several counts 
> if someone has defined a null vector field there. And if a charge is 
> suddenly placed in that subspace it is known that forces from it will 
> NOT be measured immediately at a distance from it (unless we are talking 
> ESP interactions) as the actions travel away from the source at velocity c.
> 
>

Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and take 
one home?

All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out of 
our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our senses is 
nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based on models.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467293

On 8/8/2018 3:14 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 8/08/2018 10:04 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
>>>
>>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and 
>>> models.
>>>
>>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no 
>>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid 
>>>> of fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) 
>>>> of fields whose value is simply zero?
>>>
>>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you 
>>> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a 
>>> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in 
>>> which it is zero (which really never happens).
>>>
>>>      As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means.
>>>
>>> Tom Roberts
>>
>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector 
>> field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term vector field 
>> because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field 
>> which is something else entirely, right?)
>>
>> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a 
>> vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them)
>> in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists 
>> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at 
>> every point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose 
>> NOT to define a field in that space (reality is determined by my 
>> imagination, right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a 
>> coordinate system, unless I choose not to define one of those either, 
>> in which case there is no subspace existing at all and I win, right?
>>
>> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in 
>> Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to 
>> describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by 
>> charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if 
>> they were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are real, models 
>> are fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there are no forces 
>> present in the subspace. People use the terminology that there are no 
>> "fields" there but as seen above that is mathematically wrong on 
>> several counts if someone has defined a null vector field there. And 
>> if a charge is suddenly placed in that subspace it is known that 
>> forces from it will NOT be measured immediately at a distance from it 
>> (unless we are talking ESP interactions) as the actions travel away 
>> from the source at velocity c.
>>
>>
> 
> Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and take 
> one home?
> 
> All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out of 
> our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our senses is 
> nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based on models.
> 
> Sylvia.

Oh so you really have no training in science and are a liberal 
journalist who believes that all reality exists ONLY in your imagination 
and drug-soaked fantasies. Well, welcome to the crowd. That describes 
nearly all of those here pretending to discuss science.

Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your 
silly ass. Mathematics exists only in fantasy. While it is true we do 
not have direct access to our optical and other sensor arrays and 
therefore perceive the data as algorithmic output, that does not imply 
that reality only exists as algorithmic fantasy. Although glasses 
provide algorithmic transformation of the images coming to your eyes, 
putting on your glasses does not mean that the world out there is now 
total fantasy. Are you one of those "the moon does not exist until 
somebody looks at it" idiots?

Mathematics is not more real than reality.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467313

benj amok-crossposted nonsense:
> On 8/8/2018 3:14 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and take
>> one home?
>>
>> All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out of
>> our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our senses is
>> nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based on models.
>
> Oh so you really have no training in science and are a liberal
> journalist who believes that all reality exists ONLY in your imagination
> and drug-soaked fantasies. […]

ObRelativity:

,-<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Albert-Einstein-on-Space-Time-1987141>
|
| […]
|
| SPACE-TIME
|
| All our thoughts and concepts are called up by sense-experiences and have
| a meaning only in reference to these sense-experiences. On the other hand,
| however, they are products of the spontaneous activity of our minds; they
| are thus in no wise logical consequences of the contents of these sense
| experiences. If, therefore, we wish to grasp the essence of a complex of
| abstract notions we must for the one part investigate the mutual
| relationships between the concepts and the assertions made about them; for
| the other, we must investigate how they are related to the experiences.
|
| […]

I am aware that this will probably not convince you either that you have
multiple misconceptions.  But it nicely shows how very wrong you are when
cluelessly labeling people “liberal journalists” (as if that would be an
insult).

F’up2 .relativity

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467352

On 9/08/2018 12:34 AM, benj wrote:
> On 8/8/2018 3:14 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 8/08/2018 10:04 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
>>>>
>>>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and 
>>>> models.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no 
>>>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid 
>>>>> of fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) 
>>>>> of fields whose value is simply zero?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you 
>>>> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a 
>>>> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in 
>>>> which it is zero (which really never happens).
>>>>
>>>>      As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>
>>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector 
>>> field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term vector field 
>>> because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field 
>>> which is something else entirely, right?)
>>>
>>> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a 
>>> vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them)
>>> in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists 
>>> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at 
>>> every point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose 
>>> NOT to define a field in that space (reality is determined by my 
>>> imagination, right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a 
>>> coordinate system, unless I choose not to define one of those either, 
>>> in which case there is no subspace existing at all and I win, right?
>>>
>>> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in 
>>> Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to 
>>> describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by 
>>> charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if 
>>> they were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are real, models 
>>> are fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there are no forces 
>>> present in the subspace. People use the terminology that there are no 
>>> "fields" there but as seen above that is mathematically wrong on 
>>> several counts if someone has defined a null vector field there. And 
>>> if a charge is suddenly placed in that subspace it is known that 
>>> forces from it will NOT be measured immediately at a distance from it 
>>> (unless we are talking ESP interactions) as the actions travel away 
>>> from the source at velocity c.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and 
>> take one home?
>>
>> All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out of 
>> our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our senses is 
>> nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based on models.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Oh so you really have no training in science and are a liberal 
> journalist who believes that all reality exists ONLY in your imagination 
> and drug-soaked fantasies. Well, welcome to the crowd. That describes 
> nearly all of those here pretending to discuss science.
> 
> Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your 
> silly ass. Mathematics exists only in fantasy. While it is true we do 
> not have direct access to our optical and other sensor arrays and 
> therefore perceive the data as algorithmic output, that does not imply 
> that reality only exists as algorithmic fantasy. Although glasses 
> provide algorithmic transformation of the images coming to your eyes, 
> putting on your glasses does not mean that the world out there is now 
> total fantasy. Are you one of those "the moon does not exist until 
> somebody looks at it" idiots?
> 
> Mathematics is not more real than reality.
> 

If you're going to engage in straw man argument and abuse, I can't be 
bothered with you.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467355

On 8/8/2018 7:15 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 9/08/2018 12:34 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 8/8/2018 3:14 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 8/08/2018 10:04 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
>>>>>
>>>>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and 
>>>>> models.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no 
>>>>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid 
>>>>>> of fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) 
>>>>>> of fields whose value is simply zero?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you 
>>>>> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is 
>>>>> a corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions 
>>>>> in which it is zero (which really never happens).
>>>>>
>>>>>      As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>>
>>>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector 
>>>> field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term vector field 
>>>> because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field 
>>>> which is something else entirely, right?)
>>>>
>>>> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a 
>>>> vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them)
>>>> in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists 
>>>> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at 
>>>> every point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose 
>>>> NOT to define a field in that space (reality is determined by my 
>>>> imagination, right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a 
>>>> coordinate system, unless I choose not to define one of those 
>>>> either, in which case there is no subspace existing at all and I 
>>>> win, right?
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in 
>>>> Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to 
>>>> describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by 
>>>> charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if 
>>>> they were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are real, 
>>>> models are fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there are no 
>>>> forces present in the subspace. People use the terminology that 
>>>> there are no "fields" there but as seen above that is mathematically 
>>>> wrong on several counts if someone has defined a null vector field 
>>>> there. And if a charge is suddenly placed in that subspace it is 
>>>> known that forces from it will NOT be measured immediately at a 
>>>> distance from it (unless we are talking ESP interactions) as the 
>>>> actions travel away from the source at velocity c.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and 
>>> take one home?
>>>
>>> All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out of 
>>> our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our senses is 
>>> nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based on models.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Oh so you really have no training in science and are a liberal 
>> journalist who believes that all reality exists ONLY in your 
>> imagination and drug-soaked fantasies. Well, welcome to the crowd. 
>> That describes nearly all of those here pretending to discuss science.
>>
>> Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your 
>> silly ass. Mathematics exists only in fantasy. While it is true we do 
>> not have direct access to our optical and other sensor arrays and 
>> therefore perceive the data as algorithmic output, that does not imply 
>> that reality only exists as algorithmic fantasy. Although glasses 
>> provide algorithmic transformation of the images coming to your eyes, 
>> putting on your glasses does not mean that the world out there is now 
>> total fantasy. Are you one of those "the moon does not exist until 
>> somebody looks at it" idiots?
>>
>> Mathematics is not more real than reality.
>>
> 
> If you're going to engage in straw man argument and abuse, I can't be 
> bothered with you.
> 
> Sylvia.

Translation. You have nothing so you turn tail and run.

(As you will recall (but certainly will lie about and deny) the abuse 
was started by YOU, If you can't stand the heat then get out of the 
kitchen and get a career in government)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467371

On 9/08/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote:
> On 8/8/2018 7:15 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 9/08/2018 12:34 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2018 3:14 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 8/08/2018 10:04 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories 
>>>>>> and models.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no 
>>>>>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not 
>>>>>>> devoid of fields but actually is filled with an electric (an 
>>>>>>> other types) of fields whose value is simply zero?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you 
>>>>>> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is 
>>>>>> a corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including 
>>>>>> regions in which it is zero (which really never happens).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>>>
>>>>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a 
>>>>> vector field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term vector 
>>>>> field because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic 
>>>>> field which is something else entirely, right?)
>>>>>
>>>>> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and 
>>>>> a vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of 
>>>>> them)
>>>>> in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists 
>>>>> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at 
>>>>> every point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose 
>>>>> NOT to define a field in that space (reality is determined by my 
>>>>> imagination, right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a 
>>>>> coordinate system, unless I choose not to define one of those 
>>>>> either, in which case there is no subspace existing at all and I 
>>>>> win, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in 
>>>>> Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to 
>>>>> describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by 
>>>>> charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if 
>>>>> they were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are real, 
>>>>> models are fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there are no 
>>>>> forces present in the subspace. People use the terminology that 
>>>>> there are no "fields" there but as seen above that is 
>>>>> mathematically wrong on several counts if someone has defined a 
>>>>> null vector field there. And if a charge is suddenly placed in that 
>>>>> subspace it is known that forces from it will NOT be measured 
>>>>> immediately at a distance from it (unless we are talking ESP 
>>>>> interactions) as the actions travel away from the source at 
>>>>> velocity c.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and 
>>>> take one home?
>>>>
>>>> All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out 
>>>> of our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our senses 
>>>> is nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based on models.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Oh so you really have no training in science and are a liberal 
>>> journalist who believes that all reality exists ONLY in your 
>>> imagination and drug-soaked fantasies. Well, welcome to the crowd. 
>>> That describes nearly all of those here pretending to discuss science.
>>>
>>> Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your 
>>> silly ass. Mathematics exists only in fantasy. While it is true we do 
>>> not have direct access to our optical and other sensor arrays and 
>>> therefore perceive the data as algorithmic output, that does not 
>>> imply that reality only exists as algorithmic fantasy. Although 
>>> glasses provide algorithmic transformation of the images coming to 
>>> your eyes, putting on your glasses does not mean that the world out 
>>> there is now total fantasy. Are you one of those "the moon does not 
>>> exist until somebody looks at it" idiots?
>>>
>>> Mathematics is not more real than reality.
>>>
>>
>> If you're going to engage in straw man argument and abuse, I can't be 
>> bothered with you.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Translation. You have nothing so you turn tail and run.
> 
> (As you will recall (but certainly will lie about and deny) the abuse 
> was started by YOU, If you can't stand the heat then get out of the 
> kitchen and get a career in government)

Yeah, that might have worked with a teenager.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467409

On 8/8/2018 9:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 9/08/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 8/8/2018 7:15 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 9/08/2018 12:34 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 8/8/2018 3:14 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 8/08/2018 10:04 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories 
>>>>>>> and models.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no 
>>>>>>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not 
>>>>>>>> devoid of fields but actually is filled with an electric (an 
>>>>>>>> other types) of fields whose value is simply zero?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you 
>>>>>>> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there 
>>>>>>> is a corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including 
>>>>>>> regions in which it is zero (which really never happens).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a 
>>>>>> vector field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term 
>>>>>> vector field because otherwise the term can be confused with an 
>>>>>> algebraic field which is something else entirely, right?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and 
>>>>>> a vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of 
>>>>>> them)
>>>>>> in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists 
>>>>>> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at 
>>>>>> every point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I 
>>>>>> choose NOT to define a field in that space (reality is determined 
>>>>>> by my imagination, right?) then there is no field in that subspace 
>>>>>> only a coordinate system, unless I choose not to define one of 
>>>>>> those either, in which case there is no subspace existing at all 
>>>>>> and I win, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and 
>>>>>> in Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model 
>>>>>> to describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced 
>>>>>> by charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" 
>>>>>> as if they were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are 
>>>>>> real, models are fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there 
>>>>>> are no forces present in the subspace. People use the terminology 
>>>>>> that there are no "fields" there but as seen above that is 
>>>>>> mathematically wrong on several counts if someone has defined a 
>>>>>> null vector field there. And if a charge is suddenly placed in 
>>>>>> that subspace it is known that forces from it will NOT be measured 
>>>>>> immediately at a distance from it (unless we are talking ESP 
>>>>>> interactions) as the actions travel away from the source at 
>>>>>> velocity c.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and 
>>>>> take one home?
>>>>>
>>>>> All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out 
>>>>> of our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our 
>>>>> senses is nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based 
>>>>> on models.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> Oh so you really have no training in science and are a liberal 
>>>> journalist who believes that all reality exists ONLY in your 
>>>> imagination and drug-soaked fantasies. Well, welcome to the crowd. 
>>>> That describes nearly all of those here pretending to discuss science.
>>>>
>>>> Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your 
>>>> silly ass. Mathematics exists only in fantasy. While it is true we 
>>>> do not have direct access to our optical and other sensor arrays and 
>>>> therefore perceive the data as algorithmic output, that does not 
>>>> imply that reality only exists as algorithmic fantasy. Although 
>>>> glasses provide algorithmic transformation of the images coming to 
>>>> your eyes, putting on your glasses does not mean that the world out 
>>>> there is now total fantasy. Are you one of those "the moon does not 
>>>> exist until somebody looks at it" idiots?
>>>>
>>>> Mathematics is not more real than reality.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you're going to engage in straw man argument and abuse, I can't be 
>>> bothered with you.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Translation. You have nothing so you turn tail and run.
>>
>> (As you will recall (but certainly will lie about and deny) the abuse 
>> was started by YOU, If you can't stand the heat then get out of the 
>> kitchen and get a career in government)
> 
> Yeah, that might have worked with a teenager.
> 
> Sylvia.

Total avoidance of all salient questions noted.
(Especially the one of who began the abuse)

So how old are you anyway? Don't worry. In just a short time both you 
and Nads will be teens!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467301

On 8/7/18 7:04 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and models.
>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges and 
>>> hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but actually 
>>> is filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose value is simply 
>>> zero?
>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you believe that 
>> QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a corresponding 
>> electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in which it is zero (which 
>> really never happens).
>>
>>      As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means.
> 
> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector field is, 
> mathematically. 

No. There are fields other than vector fields; I gave examples earlier.

> (Note you must use the term vector field because otherwise the 
> term can be confused with an algebraic field which is something else entirely, 
> right?)

Not in this context, which is physics and the mathematics of physics. The word 
also won't be confused with a flat area on which a farmer grows wheat. Context 
matters.

> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a vector 
> quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them)
> in that subspace.

Hmmm. A vector field is actually A LOT more complicated than that, but the 
details don't matter. Ditto for scalar and tensor fields....

> [... more nonsense]

> Mathematics is not more real than reality. 

Hmmm. You don't know what "reality" is. All you know, and all you CAN know, is 
various MODELS of reality. Mathematics is the same "level" as your models of 
reality -- i.e. both are pure thought.

	A map is a representation of a model; the model itself comes
	alive in your mind when you look at the map and think about it.

> In reality and in Maxwell 
> theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to describe what seems to 
> be force field like phenomena produced by charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love 
> to talk about "fields" as if they were real physical things. They are NOT. 

Of course not -- but they have a name, and that ineluctably means they are part 
of some model. But it is conventional to not bother mentioning "in the model" in 
every sentence, because such pedantry would obscure more important things being 
discussed.

> Forces are real, models are fantasy.

Forces are PART OF THE MODEL. Models of the world are not mere "fantasy", 
because they are supported by and derived from experimental observations of the 
world.

	You cannot find your bed at night without a (mental) model of
	your domicile -- you mentally traverse the model from where
	you are currently located to your bed, and then manipulate
	your body to follow that path. Where do you think that model
	came from? How accurately do you think that model corresponds
	to the real world? (For instance, does your model include each
	and every atom of each and every object?)

Here's a general rule: if something has a name, it is part of a model, even 
though it may be modeling some aspect of the world.

> [... more nonsense]
> I certainly can DEFINE my "field" to not be present until that force arrives.

But then you cannot expect other people to understand your private definitions.

Language has two purposes: 1) to assist us in thinking about ideas, and 2) to 
communicate those ideas to others. By just making stuff up like this you 
compromise BOTH -- your "thinking" here is quite fuzzy.

> [... more nonsense]

> Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your silly ass.

Hmmm. AS USUAL, you are mixing up model and world. We all do that, because 
keeping them straight would involve so many circumlocutions and pedantic 
interjections that thinking and communication would be so bogged down and 
encumbered in minutiae and irrelevancies that they become essentially impossible.

Forces are part of the model, even though the phenomena to which they correspond 
in the world "can move your silly ass". See the above general rule.

	Ask yourself: HOW would you think about or discuss whatever it
	is that "can move your silly ass", WITHOUT words and WITHOUT a
	model. You will find that you cannot do so -- all you can discuss
	are models, because all your mind can process is thoughts
	(including the words corresponding to those thoughts). Thoughts
	are NOT something that "can move your silly ass", but they can
	model such somethings. (Thoughts can also induce you to manipulate
	your body to "move your silly ass", but that is quite different.)

	Note this includes my 'whatever it is that "can move your silly
	ass"' -- THINK about which model that belongs to....

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467308

On 8/8/2018 12:08 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/7/18 7:04 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics?
>>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and 
>>> models.
>>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no 
>>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid 
>>>> of fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) 
>>>> of fields whose value is simply zero?
>>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you 
>>> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a 
>>> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in 
>>> which it is zero (which really never happens).
>>>
>>>      As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means.
>>
>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector 
>> field is, mathematically. 
> 
> No. There are fields other than vector fields; I gave examples earlier.

Stop thinking what you are going to say next and read what people are 
writing.

>> (Note you must use the term vector field because otherwise the term 
>> can be confused with an algebraic field which is something else 
>> entirely, right?)
> 
> Not in this context, which is physics and the mathematics of physics. 
> The word also won't be confused with a flat area on which a farmer grows 
> wheat. Context matters.

Nonsense babble.

>> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a 
>> vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them)
>> in that subspace.
> 
> Hmmm. A vector field is actually A LOT more complicated than that, but 
> the details don't matter. Ditto for scalar and tensor fields....

Trying to show off how much you know rather than discussing the issue in 
question? Nobody cares what you know.l

>> [... more nonsense]
> 
>> Mathematics is not more real than reality. 
> 
> Hmmm. You don't know what "reality" is. All you know, and all you CAN 
> know, is various MODELS of reality. Mathematics is the same "level" as 
> your models of reality -- i.e. both are pure thought.

So you think reality is "pure thought". What a liberal viewpoint! And 
what is your evidence that no material reality actually exists? None. 
The fact that reality cannot be precisely nailed down at present is no 
prove it does not exist. Odd can never be precisely nailed down but I'm 
pretty sure he exists. So you are convinced that ESP astral planes and 
all the rest truly exist, right? So if everything is "pure thought" then 
what does "pure thought" consist of?

>      A map is a representation of a model; the model itself comes
>      alive in your mind when you look at the map and think about it.

And thus te model is reality once you look at it and think about it. 
That is real "science" for sure.

>> In reality and in Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is 
>> only a model to describe what seems to be force field like phenomena 
>> produced by charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about 
>> "fields" as if they were real physical things. They are NOT. 
> 
> Of course not -- but they have a name, and that ineluctably means they 
> are part of some model. But it is conventional to not bother mentioning 
> "in the model" in every sentence, because such pedantry would obscure 
> more important things being discussed.

I already made this point if you were to listen instead of try to show 
how much you "know". And yes, the underlying definitions ARE taken to be 
"understood" without repeating them, The problem is when people start to 
to forget the assumptions and leap to erroneous conclusions.

>> Forces are real, models are fantasy.
> 
> Forces are PART OF THE MODEL. Models of the world are not mere 
> "fantasy", because they are supported by and derived from experimental 
> observations of the world.

Yes the goal is to make the models reflect reality as closely as 
possible, and none are ever perfect (so far). So how does that mean that 
reality is only a figment of your imagination?

>      You cannot find your bed at night without a (mental) model of
>      your domicile -- you mentally traverse the model from where
>      you are currently located to your bed, and then manipulate
>      your body to follow that path. Where do you think that model
>      came from? How accurately do you think that model corresponds
>      to the real world? (For instance, does your model include each
>      and every atom of each and every object?)

So that means my bed is only a figment of my imagination? How nuts are you?

> Here's a general rule: if something has a name, it is part of a model, 
> even though it may be modeling some aspect of the world.

Wait a minute. Now you are saying there are models and the "world". A 
second ago you said there was no world, only models. Babbling drool.

>> [... more nonsense]
>> I certainly can DEFINE my "field" to not be present until that force 
>> arrives.
> 
> But then you cannot expect other people to understand your private 
> definitions.

No, but does that make my fantasy "reality" any less valid than yours? 
I'm sure according to your theories all fantasies are equally valid.

> Language has two purposes: 1) to assist us in thinking about ideas, and 
> 2) to communicate those ideas to others. By just making stuff up like 
> this you compromise BOTH -- your "thinking" here is quite fuzzy.
> 
>> [... more nonsense]
> 
>> Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your 
>> silly ass.
> 
> Hmmm. AS USUAL, you are mixing up model and world. We all do that, 
> because keeping them straight would involve so many circumlocutions and 
> pedantic interjections that thinking and communication would be so 
> bogged down and encumbered in minutiae and irrelevancies that they 
> become essentially impossible.

No, YOU are mixing them up because YOU think that models ARE the world.
That is patent nonsense.

> Forces are part of the model, even though the phenomena to which they 
> correspond in the world "can move your silly ass". See the above general 
> rule.
> 
>      Ask yourself: HOW would you think about or discuss whatever it
>      is that "can move your silly ass", WITHOUT words and WITHOUT a
>      model. You will find that you cannot do so -- all you can discuss
>      are models, because all your mind can process is thoughts
>      (including the words corresponding to those thoughts). Thoughts
>      are NOT something that "can move your silly ass", but they can
>      model such somethings. (Thoughts can also induce you to manipulate
>      your body to "move your silly ass", but that is quite different.)
> 
>      Note this includes my 'whatever it is that "can move your silly
>      ass"' -- THINK about which model that belongs to....

A force on your ass is NOT caused by a model. The Model can help 
"explain" the force and it's effects but is certainly is NOT the force 
unless you agree that psychokinesis is real and thoughts can can bend 
spoons and cause forces. You accept that idea, right?

> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467318

benj wrote:
> On 8/8/2018 12:08 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 8/7/18 7:04 PM, benj wrote:
>>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector 
>>> field is, mathematically. 
>> No. There are fields other than vector fields; I gave examples earlier.
> 
> Stop thinking what you are going to say next and read what people are 
> writing.

What you wrote was wrong, period.

A reasonable person would accept the possibility of having been wrong and
learn from it, so as not to repeat the same mistake in the future.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467410

On 8/8/18 12:23 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/8/2018 12:08 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> Mathematics is not more real than reality. 
>> Hmmm. You don't know what "reality" is. All you know, and all you CAN know, is 
>> various MODELS of reality. Mathematics is the same "level" as your models of 
>> reality -- i.e. both are pure thought.
> 
> So you think reality is "pure thought".

Take your own advice and READ what other people write. I said NOTHING like that.

> [... complete nonsense omitted]

>>      You cannot find your bed at night without a (mental) model of
>>      your domicile -- you mentally traverse the model from where
>>      you are currently located to your bed, and then manipulate
>>      your body to follow that path. Where do you think that model
>>      came from? How accurately do you think that model corresponds
>>      to the real world? (For instance, does your model include each
>>      and every atom of each and every object?)
> 
> So that means my bed is only a figment of my imagination?

Take your own advice and READ what other people write. I said NOTHING like that.

> How nuts are you?

Not nearly as nuts as you -- making stuff up like you do here is HOPELESS.

> [... repetitions of the same inability to read]

There's no point in continuing.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467426

On 8/9/2018 11:15 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/8/18 12:23 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 8/8/2018 12:08 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> Mathematics is not more real than reality. 
>>> Hmmm. You don't know what "reality" is. All you know, and all you CAN 
>>> know, is various MODELS of reality. Mathematics is the same "level" 
>>> as your models of reality -- i.e. both are pure thought.
>>
>> So you think reality is "pure thought".
> 
> Take your own advice and READ what other people write. I said NOTHING 
> like that.

I read what you are saying. You are saying that mathematical models of 
reality and my perception of reality are both "pure thought". And on the 
surface that is obviously true. However there is the third component 
here which is reality itself. Does it actually exist?

The problem with your view is that you don't recognize this third 
component. My perception of reality does not depend ALONE on my 
fantasies. Reality sends information back to my perception be cause it 
clearly seems to be a third entity here with it's own laws and rules 
which my (our) perception attempt to codify and understand. You an Odd 
all deny the existence of this third component based upon your religious 
beliefs.

>> [... complete nonsense omitted]

You are right. It is a waste of time to try to discuss science with 
insane fanatics.

>>>      You cannot find your bed at night without a (mental) model of
>>>      your domicile -- you mentally traverse the model from where
>>>      you are currently located to your bed, and then manipulate
>>>      your body to follow that path. Where do you think that model
>>>      came from? How accurately do you think that model corresponds
>>>      to the real world? (For instance, does your model include each
>>>      and every atom of each and every object?)
>>
>> So that means my bed is only a figment of my imagination?
> 
> Take your own advice and READ what other people write. I said NOTHING 
> like that.
> 
>> How nuts are you?
> 
> Not nearly as nuts as you -- making stuff up like you do here is HOPELESS.
> 
>> [... repetitions of the same inability to read]
> 
> There's no point in continuing.
> 
> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467609

On 8/9/18 11:48 AM, benj wrote:
> On 8/9/2018 11:15 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 8/8/18 12:23 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2018 12:08 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>> Mathematics is not more real than reality. 
>>>> Hmmm. You don't know what "reality" is. All you know, and all you 
>>>> CAN know, is various MODELS of reality. Mathematics is the same 
>>>> "level" as your models of reality -- i.e. both are pure thought.
>>>
>>> So you think reality is "pure thought".
>>
>> Take your own advice and READ what other people write. I said NOTHING 
>> like that.
> 
> I read what you are saying. You are saying that mathematical models of 
> reality and my perception of reality are both "pure thought". And on the 
> surface that is obviously true. However there is the third component 
> here which is reality itself. Does it actually exist?

Sure it exists. We have direct physical contact with it using our 
bodies, but our minds have no such connection, and everything we think 
about the world is removed from it; such thoughts are models, not the 
real thing.

> The problem with your view is that you don't recognize this third 
> component.

Nonsense! You have no idea what I do or don't think.

> My perception of reality does not depend ALONE on my 
> fantasies. Reality sends information back to my perception be cause it 
> clearly seems to be a third entity here with it's own laws and rules 
> which my (our) perception attempt to codify and understand.

Certainly. That's what science is -- making models and verifying them 
experimentally, and improving and refining them.

> You an Odd 
> all deny the existence of this third component based upon your religious 
> beliefs.

NONSENSE! You have no idea what I do or don't think. Ditto for Odd.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467625

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 8/9/18 11:48 AM, benj wrote:
>> I read what you are saying. You are saying that mathematical models of
>> reality and my perception of reality are both "pure thought". And on
>> the surface that is obviously true. However there is the third
>> component here which is reality itself. Does it actually exist?
> 
> Sure it exists. We have direct physical contact with it using our
> bodies,

Wrong already, which surprise me, coming from an experimentalist. Firstly  
there is no _we_ connected, and the body is just a package of 3D , 4D 
sensors. Coupled to an intuition mechanism, not to forget.

> but our minds have no such connection, and everything we think about the
> world is removed from it; such thoughts are models, not the real thing.

Absolutely not. That's exactly what makes a reasoning and intuition 
mechanism sense and establish the Law of Nature. I'm afraid you have it 
upside down. Look, how you should see it

world -> if -> sensing mech -> if -> intuition -> if -> reasoning

if: interface

it looks like a 4D going into 2D, but I'm not sure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467626

Owen Scharff wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
>> On 8/9/18 11:48 AM, benj wrote:
>>> I read what you are saying. You are saying that mathematical models of
>>> reality and my perception of reality are both "pure thought". And on
>>> the surface that is obviously true. However there is the third
>>> component here which is reality itself. Does it actually exist?
>> 
>> Sure it exists. We have direct physical contact with it using our
>> bodies,
> 
> Wrong already, which surprise me, coming from an experimentalist.
> Firstly there is no _we_ connected, and the body is just a package of 3D
> , 4D sensors. Coupled to an intuition mechanism, not to forget.
> 
>> but our minds have no such connection, and everything we think about
>> the world is removed from it; such thoughts are models, not the real
>> thing.
> 
> Absolutely not. That's exactly what makes a reasoning and intuition
> mechanism sense and establish the Law of Nature. I'm afraid you have it
> upside down. Look
> 
> world -> if -> sensing mech -> if -> intuition -> if -> reasoning
> 
> if: interface
> 
> it looks like a 4D going into 2D, but I'm not sure.

substitute "going" with "maps", since is what is going on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467638

On 8/12/2018 12:37 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/9/18 11:48 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 8/9/2018 11:15 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 8/8/18 12:23 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 8/8/2018 12:08 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> Mathematics is not more real than reality. 
>>>>> Hmmm. You don't know what "reality" is. All you know, and all you 
>>>>> CAN know, is various MODELS of reality. Mathematics is the same 
>>>>> "level" as your models of reality -- i.e. both are pure thought.
>>>>
>>>> So you think reality is "pure thought".
>>>
>>> Take your own advice and READ what other people write. I said NOTHING 
>>> like that.
>>
>> I read what you are saying. You are saying that mathematical models of 
>> reality and my perception of reality are both "pure thought". And on 
>> the surface that is obviously true. However there is the third 
>> component here which is reality itself. Does it actually exist?
> 
> Sure it exists. We have direct physical contact with it using our 
> bodies, but our minds have no such connection, and everything we think 
> about the world is removed from it; such thoughts are models, not the 
> real thing.

So you agree with me that there are two things. Reality and our models 
of reality. The human task is to take our logic and models and try to 
use them to infer what reality actually is. This effort has not been 
totally ineffective so far.

>> The problem with your view is that you don't recognize this third 
>> component.
> 
> Nonsense! You have no idea what I do or don't think.

Only because you won't tell us what you think.

>> My perception of reality does not depend ALONE on my fantasies. 
>> Reality sends information back to my perception be cause it clearly 
>> seems to be a third entity here with it's own laws and rules which my 
>> (our) perception attempt to codify and understand.
> 
> Certainly. That's what science is -- making models and verifying them 
> experimentally, and improving and refining them.

Yes.

>> You an Odd all deny the existence of this third component based upon 
>> your religious beliefs.
> 
> NONSENSE! You have no idea what I do or don't think. Ditto for Odd.

You just admitted existence of the third component (reality) so now that 
only leaves Odd who is still denying reality.

> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467676

On 8/12/18 9:09 AM, benj wrote:
> So you agree with me that there are two things. Reality and our models 
> of reality.

Close enough.

> The human task is to take our logic and models and try to 
> use them to infer what reality actually is.

Hmmm. "inferring what reality actually is" is hopeless -- we can only 
APPROXIMATE it, and such approximations are valid only in limited 
domains. The domains for which we have accurate models are limited by 
our ability to perform experiments, and there are domains in which we 
are unlikely to ever perform experiments, such as the Planck scale.

The history of science is replete with examples of models that were 
thought to be "how nature actually works", but which were shown to be 
completely wrong by improved technology. There can be no reasonable 
expectation that this will ever end....

> This effort has not been 
> totally ineffective so far.

Hmmm. Making models has been very effective in domains accessible to us; 
"inferring what reality actually is" has been COMPLETELY ineffective.

	That is, today nobody can reasonably claim to "know how
	nature actually works". Our best fundamental models are
	all quantum field theories, but there are STRONG
	indications that QFT is at best an approximation -- we
	have only rather vague guesses about what underlies QFT....

We do, of course, have a large number of models that APPROXIMATE the 
world we inhabit in various domains. For instance, models of our 
everyday lives all approximate solids, liquids, and gases as continuous 
objects, and these models are extremely accurate and useful within such 
approximations [#]. But those objects are not continuous and are made of 
myriad atoms. Our models of how atoms are constructed are also highly 
accurate within the limits of their approximations, but many, many 
details are still unknown.

	This last is why the top priority for the US DoE Office
	of Nuclear Physics is the construction of an electron-ion
	collider. It should provide many new details of nuclear
	structure.

	[#] One such model is how you find your bed at night, as
	I have discussed before.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467703

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 8/12/18 9:09 AM, benj wrote:
>> So you agree with me that there are two things. Reality and our models
>> of reality.
> 
> Close enough.
> 
>> The human task is to take our logic and models and try to use them to
>> infer what reality actually is.
> 
> Hmmm. "inferring what reality actually is" is hopeless -- we can only
> APPROXIMATE it, and such approximations are valid only in limited
> domains.
> The domains for which we have accurate models are limited by our ability
> to perform experiments, and there are domains in which we are unlikely
> to ever perform experiments, such as the Planck scale.

You both seems confused. The "reality" itself _IS_ an aproximation. Tight 
related to the ideal, of course. But nevertheless, using your description, 
the reality itself is a model.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467706

On Monday, 13 August 2018 12:53:15 UTC+2, Lovu Biftek  wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> > On 8/12/18 9:09 AM, benj wrote:
> >> So you agree with me that there are two things. Reality and our models
> >> of reality.
> > 
> > Close enough.
> > 
> >> The human task is to take our logic and models and try to use them to
> >> infer what reality actually is.
> > 
> > Hmmm. "inferring what reality actually is" is hopeless -- we can only
> > APPROXIMATE it, and such approximations are valid only in limited
> > domains.
> > The domains for which we have accurate models are limited by our ability
> > to perform experiments, and there are domains in which we are unlikely
> > to ever perform experiments, such as the Planck scale.
> 
> You both seems confused. The "reality" itself _IS_ an aproximation.

Surely the reality is too stupid to apply
the brilliant ideas of an idiot physicist
succesfully; it can only aproximate them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467725

On 8/12/2018 10:29 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/12/18 9:09 AM, benj wrote:
>> So you agree with me that there are two things. Reality and our models 
>> of reality.
> 
> Close enough.
> 
>> The human task is to take our logic and models and try to use them to 
>> infer what reality actually is.
> 
> Hmmm. "inferring what reality actually is" is hopeless -- we can only 
> APPROXIMATE it, and such approximations are valid only in limited 
> domains. The domains for which we have accurate models are limited by 
> our ability to perform experiments, and there are domains in which we 
> are unlikely to ever perform experiments, such as the Planck scale.

Well "hopeless" ia a bit too far. That is like saying knowing reality is 
"impossible" and we all know what that statement makes you.

> The history of science is replete with examples of models that were 
> thought to be "how nature actually works", but which were shown to be 
> completely wrong by improved technology. There can be no reasonable 
> expectation that this will ever end....

"no reasonable expectation" is a valid opinon, "impossible" is not.

>> This effort has not been totally ineffective so far.
> 
> Hmmm. Making models has been very effective in domains accessible to us; 
> "inferring what reality actually is" has been COMPLETELY ineffective.
> 
>      That is, today nobody can reasonably claim to "know how
>      nature actually works". Our best fundamental models are
>      all quantum field theories, but there are STRONG
>      indications that QFT is at best an approximation -- we
>      have only rather vague guesses about what underlies QFT....
> 
> We do, of course, have a large number of models that APPROXIMATE the 
> world we inhabit in various domains. For instance, models of our 
> everyday lives all approximate solids, liquids, and gases as continuous 
> objects, and these models are extremely accurate and useful within such 
> approximations [#]. But those objects are not continuous and are made of 
> myriad atoms. Our models of how atoms are constructed are also highly 
> accurate within the limits of their approximations, but many, many 
> details are still unknown.

I think this view is rather too negative. You are focusing on the 
unknown areas still under investigation. The very small, the very large, 
the very obscure, etc. But one cannot ignore that fact that starting 
from nothing humans have studied the various laws that govern how our 
world works and Newton, Maxwell and others have created models that 
within their area of accuracy work very well and have build much of what 
we term our "civilization" today. Clearly, we know the job is only 
partly done, and work continues. If the task were "hopeless" then why 
continue? I mean an oxcart hauls stuff around just fine, right?

>      This last is why the top priority for the US DoE Office
>      of Nuclear Physics is the construction of an electron-ion
>      collider. It should provide many new details of nuclear
>      structure.
> 
>      [#] One such model is how you find your bed at night, as
>      I have discussed before.

Since your perception of "reality" is through a model your brain creates 
for itself, this can actually explain why man still seeks to do a 
similar thing at his level of thinking. (even though it's hopeless, 
right?) Apparently your brain realizes the utility of being able to find 
your bed at night even though the algorithm is far from totally accurate 
and perfect.

> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web