Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #552004 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-10 06:33 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-11 20:02 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 118 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Our brain has a spellchecker john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 06:33 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Sergio <imvalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-10 09:16 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 09:51 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-10 11:22 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 10:34 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-10 12:22 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 11:24 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 11:42 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 10:07 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 12:09 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 11:00 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-10 13:12 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 12:33 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 14:01 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:06 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 21:48 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 10:58 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 09:05 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:14 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:12 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:37 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:01 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 11:34 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 21:46 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 10:55 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:06 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 13:23 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 11:53 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 12:29 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 19:33 -0800
Text size of your posts Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-11 18:59 -0500
Re: Text size of your posts Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 16:14 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-12 00:27 +0000
Re: Text size of your posts Mike Duffy <Invalid@no_such_domain.com> - 2016-02-11 19:51 -0500
Re: Text size of your posts Mike Duffy <Invalid@no_such_domain.com> - 2016-02-11 19:55 -0500
Re: Text size of your posts Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 17:10 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 17:56 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 18:43 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 20:56 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 01:38 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 08:26 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 22:38 -0500
Re: Text size of your posts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-13 01:05 +0100
Re: Text size of your posts Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 16:28 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 19:33 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 07:09 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 10:38 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:31 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 12:52 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 11:09 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 21:52 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 14:14 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 14:16 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 16:24 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 22:13 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 22:06 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 11:19 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:21 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 13:54 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 19:48 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 07:12 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 07:12 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 09:50 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 10:11 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:46 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:36 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-10 14:40 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-10 20:51 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 14:56 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:49 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-11 00:13 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 17:19 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-11 00:38 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 20:35 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 22:15 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 11:20 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 09:33 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:23 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 15:15 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 19:49 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-11 08:02 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-11 02:33 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 11:28 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-11 19:53 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-11 20:22 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 15:12 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 16:26 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-11 19:25 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-12 08:21 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net> - 2016-02-12 18:17 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 07:06 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 10:54 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 13:05 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 11:36 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 00:28 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-13 20:21 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 14:09 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 20:22 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:53 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:05 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 00:52 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:34 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-13 00:44 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-10 17:34 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-10 23:53 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 14:17 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 09:03 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:35 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 10:35 -0600
Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 08:57 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:33 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-10 18:40 +0000
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 10:02 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 10:12 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:33 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 12:13 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:26 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-02-11 20:02 -0800
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 13:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <PrLuy.11001$Ix7.1168@fx29.iad> |
| In reply to | #552031 |
On 02/10/2016 12:42 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 11:22 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>> We do have a good understanding of how to apply the equations. But
>> they are
>> so counter-intuitive that there are dozens of 'schools' of interpretation
>> of quantum theory. Yet, as you say, the theory is incredibly useful in
>> arriving at a description of how to predict real-world measurable
>> outcomes.
>> QM is the cornerstone of modern physics despite the fact that we cannot
>> really fathom why the equations work as they do.
>
> While you're right that there seems to be many different schools of
> interpretation, I'm not sure this is a sign of bad health for quantum
> mechanics, for a couple of reasons.
>
> First of all, it's not limited to quantum mechanics. For example, anyone
> who has studied even classical mechanics beyond the freshman level knows
> that there are at least four different interpretations for what's
> "really going on":
> 1. Forces and accelerations are the agents of dynamics
> 2. Conservation of energy and linear and angular momentum, where forces
> are irrelevant except as specifying transfers from one body to another,
> and the conservation laws are considered the underlying root cause
> 3. Lagrangian formalism, where the dynamics are governed by the
> principle of least action.
> 4. Hamiltonian formalism, where evolution and flow through phase space
> is taken to be the "underlying mechanism", while respecting the
> conservation laws.
> Now, one would be tempted to say, "But what's the ONE TRUE WAY to
> interpret classical mechanics," and the lesson here is that there isn't
> one -- all of them can be shown to be formally equivalent and there
> isn't any way to distinguish one as more fundamental.
>
> Secondly, many of the "interpretations" of quantum mechanics are well
> into the domain of metaphysics and aren't really distinguishable in any
> testable way. Since the distinctions aren't testable, they're outside
> the domain of science. And that's fine.
>
> Finally, I'll just offer that being counter-intuitive is not really a
> valid criticism of a scientific idea. What we hold to be intuitive is
> really just an outgrowth of the narrow slice of reality that our senses
> are sensitive to, which is not necessarily representative. Our mind has
> certain models which are useful for biological survival, but that
> doesn't mean that they are TRUE.
>
NO models are true. NONE can be proven true by mathematics. And that
fact HAS been proven!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 13:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9g1dl$sih$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #552057 |
On 2/10/2016 12:37 PM, benj wrote: > NO models are true. NONE can be proven true by mathematics. And that > fact HAS been proven! Truth in science is not based on mathematical proof, Ben. Never has been. Truth in science is a) always provisional, b) based on comparison with experimental evidence. When a scientist says that a theory is valid, what it means is that it is currently accepted because it has the greatest success so far in agreement with experimental data. Mathematical proof does not even enter into that assessment. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 11:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dbdf652d-dcf2-4861-9136-e2ffeb520cd2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552067 |
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/10/2016 12:37 PM, benj wrote: > > NO models are true. NONE can be proven true by mathematics. And that > > fact HAS been proven! > > Truth in science is not based on mathematical proof, Ben. Never has > been. Truth in science is a) always provisional, b) based on comparison > with experimental evidence. When a scientist says that a theory is > valid, what it means is that it is currently accepted because it has the > greatest success so far in agreement with experimental data. > Mathematical proof does not even enter into that assessment. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables I माहिपाल, with that name alone your Vocabulary Argument went down the loo Loo LOO, so as one actual Scientist/Engineer/Physicist/MathDude... I find your facade of speaking for Science/Scientists a complete and utter nonsense. A Useless Toy. Who in Hell anointed you Odd as the voice of Science? The reality is, you Odd have little to no clue what actual Science is. You're too chicken to even share your name. You just have hatred and resentment for anyone that isn't HVAC or Sam Worm Liar. In sum, for the ADD single line crowd, Scientists are not Borg Brained. -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I've pla(y)ed with toys Toys TOYS...”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 21:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JBSuy.8179$Mn5.4093@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #552067 |
On 02/10/2016 02:01 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 12:37 PM, benj wrote:
>> NO models are true. NONE can be proven true by mathematics. And that
>> fact HAS been proven!
>
> Truth in science is not based on mathematical proof, Ben. Never has
> been. Truth in science is a) always provisional, b) based on comparison
> with experimental evidence. When a scientist says that a theory is
> valid, what it means is that it is currently accepted because it has the
> greatest success so far in agreement with experimental data.
> Mathematical proof does not even enter into that assessment.
>
Boinker you are a hoot. First you repeat what I just told you to try to
convince everyone that somehow this is YOUR point and not mine, and then
after a lifetime here of worshiping mathematical models as more real
than reality you say math has nothing to do with science. You are as
irrational as HVAC and have exactly ZERO understanding of science. I
suggest you stick with building wooden toys.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 10:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9ied9$ns2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #552160 |
On 2/10/2016 8:46 PM, benj wrote: > On 02/10/2016 02:01 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/10/2016 12:37 PM, benj wrote: >>> NO models are true. NONE can be proven true by mathematics. And that >>> fact HAS been proven! >> >> Truth in science is not based on mathematical proof, Ben. Never has >> been. Truth in science is a) always provisional, b) based on comparison >> with experimental evidence. When a scientist says that a theory is >> valid, what it means is that it is currently accepted because it has the >> greatest success so far in agreement with experimental data. >> Mathematical proof does not even enter into that assessment. >> > Boinker you are a hoot. First you repeat what I just told you to try to > convince everyone that somehow this is YOUR point and not mine, and then > after a lifetime here of worshiping mathematical models as more real > than reality you say math has nothing to do with science. No, I didn't say that math has nothing to do with science. What I said is that you don't PROVE scientific models with math. Math is very ingrained in science as a LANGUAGE used to describe the models. But proof is not the function of the math there. Period. > You are as > irrational as HVAC and have exactly ZERO understanding of science. I > suggest you stick with building wooden toys. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 14:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <AY4vy.7624$Op4.7172@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #552248 |
On 02/11/2016 11:55 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 8:46 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 02/10/2016 02:01 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 2/10/2016 12:37 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> NO models are true. NONE can be proven true by mathematics. And that
>>>> fact HAS been proven!
>>>
>>> Truth in science is not based on mathematical proof, Ben. Never has
>>> been. Truth in science is a) always provisional, b) based on comparison
>>> with experimental evidence. When a scientist says that a theory is
>>> valid, what it means is that it is currently accepted because it has the
>>> greatest success so far in agreement with experimental data.
>>> Mathematical proof does not even enter into that assessment.
>>>
>> Boinker you are a hoot. First you repeat what I just told you to try to
>> convince everyone that somehow this is YOUR point and not mine, and then
>> after a lifetime here of worshiping mathematical models as more real
>> than reality you say math has nothing to do with science.
>
> No, I didn't say that math has nothing to do with science. What I said
> is that you don't PROVE scientific models with math. Math is very
> ingrained in science as a LANGUAGE used to describe the models. But
> proof is not the function of the math there. Period.
The effort dear Odd is to construct a 1:1 correspondence between the
laws of nature and the mathematical model of them. If you can prove
something in the math then this provides PREDICTION of things to be
looked for in nature. So clearly proof in math has a central function in
science. Period.
Of course now you will pretend to explain to me how proving something in
the model does not prove it in the laws of nature. That must be done by
experiment and observations. Everyone will then be expected to think
that the knowledgeable Odd is setting the Kook BJ straight. They are
supposed to forget that I've been pounding on you forever with these
ideas and you are finally coming around. You are so small.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 13:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9in3t$18d2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #552307 |
On 2/11/2016 1:06 PM, benj wrote: > On 02/11/2016 11:55 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/10/2016 8:46 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 02/10/2016 02:01 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/10/2016 12:37 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> NO models are true. NONE can be proven true by mathematics. And that >>>>> fact HAS been proven! >>>> >>>> Truth in science is not based on mathematical proof, Ben. Never has >>>> been. Truth in science is a) always provisional, b) based on comparison >>>> with experimental evidence. When a scientist says that a theory is >>>> valid, what it means is that it is currently accepted because it has >>>> the >>>> greatest success so far in agreement with experimental data. >>>> Mathematical proof does not even enter into that assessment. >>>> >>> Boinker you are a hoot. First you repeat what I just told you to try to >>> convince everyone that somehow this is YOUR point and not mine, and then >>> after a lifetime here of worshiping mathematical models as more real >>> than reality you say math has nothing to do with science. >> >> No, I didn't say that math has nothing to do with science. What I said >> is that you don't PROVE scientific models with math. Math is very >> ingrained in science as a LANGUAGE used to describe the models. But >> proof is not the function of the math there. Period. > > The effort dear Odd is to construct a 1:1 correspondence between the > laws of nature and the mathematical model of them. This is using math as a LANGUAGE to express the model, what I said. > If you can prove > something in the math then this provides PREDICTION of things to be > looked for in nature. You are not PROVING anything in the math. You are following from hypothesis to consequence by using logical rules in math. This of course proves nothing. Calculation is not proving. > So clearly proof in math has a central function in > science. Period. Sorry, but no, this is flat wrong. > > Of course now you will pretend to explain to me how proving something in > the model does not prove it in the laws of nature. That must be done by > experiment and observations. That's right. > Everyone will then be expected to think > that the knowledgeable Odd is setting the Kook BJ straight. They are > supposed to forget that I've been pounding on you forever with these > ideas and you are finally coming around. You are so small. I don't think it's accurate to say that I'm "finally coming around". I've ALWAYS stated these things. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 11:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3c057510-a43f-4095-bb09-1d4a122e1420@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552317 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 2:23:48 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/11/2016 1:06 PM, benj wrote: > > On 02/11/2016 11:55 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/10/2016 8:46 PM, benj wrote: > >>> On 02/10/2016 02:01 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 2/10/2016 12:37 PM, benj wrote: > >>>>> NO models are true. NONE can be proven true by mathematics. And that > >>>>> fact HAS been proven! > >>>> > >>>> Truth in science is not based on mathematical proof, Ben. Never has > >>>> been. Truth in science is a) always provisional, b) based on comparison > >>>> with experimental evidence. When a scientist says that a theory is > >>>> valid, what it means is that it is currently accepted because it has > >>>> the > >>>> greatest success so far in agreement with experimental data. > >>>> Mathematical proof does not even enter into that assessment. > >>>> > >>> Boinker you are a hoot. First you repeat what I just told you to try to > >>> convince everyone that somehow this is YOUR point and not mine, and then > >>> after a lifetime here of worshiping mathematical models as more real > >>> than reality you say math has nothing to do with science. > >> > >> No, I didn't say that math has nothing to do with science. What I said > >> is that you don't PROVE scientific models with math. Math is very > >> ingrained in science as a LANGUAGE used to describe the models. But > >> proof is not the function of the math there. Period. > > > > The effort dear Odd is to construct a 1:1 correspondence between the > > laws of nature and the mathematical model of them. > > This is using math as a LANGUAGE to express the model, what I said. Hey Odd, you realize there existed smart people before you ruined them for everybody? My caps lock key is stuck, off. > > If you can prove > > something in the math then this provides PREDICTION of things to be > > looked for in nature. > > You are not PROVING anything in the math. You are following from > hypothesis to consequence by using logical rules in math. This of course > proves nothing. Calculation is not proving. > > > So clearly proof in math has a central function in > > science. Period. > > Sorry, but no, this is flat wrong. Square Rainbows. Hey look, my caps lock key works again! > > Of course now you will pretend to explain to me how proving something in > > the model does not prove it in the laws of nature. That must be done by > > experiment and observations. > > That's right. Odd odd ODD... you can never unwrite or rewrite your history. Hit Send Now. > > Everyone will then be expected to think > > that the knowledgeable Odd is setting the Kook BJ straight. They are > > supposed to forget that I've been pounding on you forever with these > > ideas and you are finally coming around. You are so small. > > I don't think it's accurate to say that I'm "finally coming around". > I've ALWAYS stated these things. Sure, like you Odd have always stated your name Name NAME. We get it. > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Liars Reach On Up To Become ...youKnow.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 12:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ebd2d0d1-aee0-4abe-84fe-a852eda1d3a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552333 |
canonical base_one; what is teh digitation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 19:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <882a79f5-0327-4e25-a05c-c89c4986811c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552341 |
romaNNumerals are a.k.a HashmarkS e.g > canonical base_one; > what is teh digitation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 18:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Text size of your posts |
| Message-ID | <nynzg9nvx959$.143pah2f5j2wn$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #552333 |
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:53:43 -0800 (PST), Mahipal wrote: (Post snipped because I have trouble seeing it.) I cannot clearly see what you post every time you post. On my newsreader, the text font of your posts is about half the size of everyone else's. Sometimes I bend close to the screen and squint, but usually I delete them unread. Are you aware of this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 16:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Text size of your posts |
| Message-ID | <562c2b1e-d0ee-42a5-be58-eed24ffe68dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552396 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 6:59:35 PM UTC-5, Mike Duffy wrote: > On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:53:43 -0800 (PST), Mahipal wrote: > > (Post snipped because I have trouble seeing it.) > > I cannot clearly see what you post every time you post. On my newsreader, > the text font of your posts is about half the size of everyone else's. It's a girlish thing. > Sometimes I bend close to the screen and squint, but usually I delete them > unread. Understood. I do in fact write my posts without ever reading them. Just an Fyi... > Are you aware of this? Not aware of this until now. But you Mike are the first to complain about the size of my Font. It has to be a local setting on your CPU. If you can't adjust your FontSize, I doubt you know how to read. HTH. -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I have a wa(y) with making friends.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 00:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Text size of your posts |
| Message-ID | <bhlvoc-rki.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #552398 |
Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 6:59:35 PM UTC-5, Mike Duffy wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:53:43 -0800 (PST), Mahipal wrote: >> >> (Post snipped because I have trouble seeing it.) >> >> I cannot clearly see what you post every time you post. On my newsreader, >> the text font of your posts is about half the size of everyone else's. > > It's a girlish thing. > >> Sometimes I bend close to the screen and squint, but usually I delete them >> unread. > > Understood. I do in fact write my posts without ever reading them. Just an Fyi... > >> Are you aware of this? > > Not aware of this until now. But you Mike are the first to complain > about the size of my Font. It has to be a local setting on your CPU. If > you can't adjust your FontSize, I doubt you know how to read. HTH. > > -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I have a wa(y) with making friends.” USENET is ASCII. Whether or not anything else works and how depends on the newsreader used. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Duffy <Invalid@no_such_domain.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 19:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Text size of your posts |
| Message-ID | <836o9qqi3cvl$.6eqn4u3jpz2h.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #552398 |
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:14:04 -0800 (PST), Mahipal wrote: > Not aware of this until now. But you Mike are the first to complain > about the size of my Font. It has to be a local setting on your CPU. All my font sizes are set the same for all the places where I can configure it. I suspect the problem has something to do with the non-latin characters in your signature. The latin characters look like the upper serifs are at the same height as the 'top bar' (not sure what you call it) of the Indian (not sure which, sorry) script. If I do a 'reply', the included text is okay, but it is a bit of a bother to do this just to read your posts. My newsreader is unicode-aware. I have noticed the same problem with other users who mix arabic or chinese characters with latin text.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Duffy <Invalid@no_such_domain.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 19:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Text size of your posts |
| Message-ID | <1osuz6wqgajle$.1r68ju5042q4r.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #552412 |
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:51:22 -0500, Mike Duffy wrote: > > My newsreader is unicode-aware. I have noticed the same problem with other > users who mix arabic or chinese characters with latin text. Never mind. I fixed it. For those using the 40tude NNTP client: Settings ; General settings ; Fonts / Colors ; [x] Disable font fallbacks. Now the latin text is okay, but the Indian script is half-size.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 17:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Text size of your posts |
| Message-ID | <793b356c-e768-49a4-acbe-be7f8affd527@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552412 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-5, Mike Duffy wrote: > On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:14:04 -0800 (PST), Mahipal wrote: > > > Not aware of this until now. But you Mike are the first to complain > > about the size of my Font. It has to be a local setting on your CPU. > > All my font sizes are set the same for all the places where I can configure > it. I suspect the problem has something to do with the non-latin characters > in your signature. The latin characters look like the upper serifs are at > the same height as the 'top bar' (not sure what you call it) of the Indian > (not sure which, sorry) script. > > If I do a 'reply', the included text is okay, but it is a bit of a bother > to do this just to read your posts. > > My newsreader is unicode-aware. I have noticed the same problem with other > users who mix arabic or chinese characters with latin text. You are kind to reply as you just did Mike Duffy. I sincerely apologize if I misread your post earlier. I normally danceSingh on glass shards. -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Stop danceSingh barefoot, I must...”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 17:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Text size of your posts |
| Message-ID | <5dadfa66-c67c-4fa8-a7ab-c16b4db87c59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552412 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-5, Mike Duffy wrote: > On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:14:04 -0800 (PST), Mahipal wrote: > > > Not aware of this until now. But you Mike are the first to complain > > about the size of my Font. It has to be a local setting on your CPU. > > All my font sizes are set the same for all the places where I can configure > it. I suspect the problem has something to do with the non-latin characters > in your signature. The latin characters look like the upper serifs are at > the same height as the 'top bar' (not sure what you call it) of the Indian > (not sure which, sorry) script. I am not sure if there is a name for the top bar in the curious Hindi/Sanskrit script. Me experience or Google searches did not help. The top bar in Hindi is like math's vector notation, every word hanging! Save that some teachers of Math place their vector lines on the bottom. When handwriting, I have struggled with where to draw the line Line LINE. > If I do a 'reply', the included text is okay, but it is a bit of a bother > to do this just to read your posts. Very few individuals actually read my posts. Most brag about how they have me Mahipal on their latest killfile lists. I wish I was joking! > My newsreader is unicode-aware. I have noticed the same problem with other > users who mix arabic or chinese characters with latin text. SW and SW Tools are a major pain in the ass. They're so perfectly... stupid! -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: CHINESE is an anagram of SEENCHI.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 18:43 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Text size of your posts |
| Message-ID | <1932c31c-094d-4e0d-9c64-d24b1b45ba06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552422 |
I am not sure if there is a name for the top bar in the curious Hindi/Sanskrit script. ------------- Say, do you know that Harry Kirshner guy?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 20:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Text size of your posts |
| Message-ID | <a4911438-55a5-4d86-8858-1d58aea48e06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552427 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:43:57 PM UTC-5, HVAC wrote: > I am not sure if there is a name for the top bar in the curious > Hindi/Sanskrit script. > ------------- > > Say, do you know that Harry Kirshner guy? Often I confuse him with the Bearded Christian guy. So much Yawn. Shouldn't you HVAC be asleep by now, it's way past your bedtime? -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Krishna ChrisTians,”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 01:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Text size of your posts |
| Message-ID | <9a54e88f-b653-4a3b-a0b7-6e0bfc5d1166@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552462 |
Shouldn't you HVAC be asleep by now, it's way past your bedtime? --------------- Sleep?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web