Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387191

Re: Classical entanglement.

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Classical entanglement.
Date	2016-07-04 12:57 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<nle81g$190k$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(17 earlier) <8429dd6b-6353-4003-8ab2-1520188e6ed9@googlegroups.com> <nl6cq2$aff$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9f6c926a-7f17-478d-8bca-a738ddbf76dc@googlegroups.com> <nle1l3$tou$2@gioia.aioe.org> <b198cdde-54d6-4f75-9c21-1991f65914e9@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/4/2016 12:07 PM, Y wrote:
> I don't agree on your first point. We don't really find out how nature works, since we never
> really prove anything about nature, we only really test accuracy of predictions with some kind
> of evidence. Evidence supports a possible truth, whereas proof regards certainty that something
> is true. In this regard we choose our own adventure in science.

Well, as I said, certainty is not in the offering of science. However, 
it is foundational to science that we get a closer and closer 
approximation to how nature *actually works* by improving our models. 
The improvement of a model is determined operationally in the manner 
already described. If the theory makes predictions of observable 
behaviors with increasing accuracy and increasing breadth of 
application, then as far as science is concerned this marks a more 
successful model than what was had before. And thus, by intent of the 
method, one has achieved a more proximate understanding of the way 
nature actually works.

Proofs are not part of science. Therefore any certainty one would 
achieve from "proof" is not available to you in science.

>
> Lastly, a function is something with inputs and outputs (which is how anything that is
> designed or occurs to function “functions"). An equation in this respect has likeness to
>  a vacuum cleaner, and it is this functionality which is the reason that mathematics has
> ANY predictive value at all. This is because the world is a vast sum of systems with
> inputs and outputs. Mathematics are systems where inputs are numbers, and outputs are
> numbers. So then, match physical inputs with numbers, describe system with a function,
> and your outputs should form a prediction (if your equation accurately models system).
>

As I've commented before, I just don't buy into your playing with 
language to suit your own interpretations.

> -y
>

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thread

Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 04:52 -0700
  Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-27 22:01 +1000
    Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 05:02 -0700
      Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-27 22:17 +1000
        Re: Classical entanglement. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-27 06:25 -0700
    Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 05:13 -0700
      Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-27 22:28 +1000
        Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 05:40 -0700
          Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 11:46 +1000
            Re: Classical entanglement. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-28 09:08 +0200
              Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 19:48 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-28 02:59 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 20:23 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-28 04:00 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 21:46 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-28 05:42 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-29 11:58 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-28 21:11 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-29 14:24 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 04:24 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-29 22:03 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 06:15 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 11:28 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 19:13 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 12:34 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 20:02 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 14:12 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 21:38 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 14:49 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:11 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-30 11:57 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-01 12:34 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:42 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:55 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 10:15 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 08:43 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 09:09 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 13:29 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:56 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-02 08:35 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 11:08 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-04 10:07 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 12:57 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-02 12:55 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-02 00:06 -0500
                Re: Classical entanglement. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 20:00 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-28 12:52 +0200
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 21:47 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-28 15:19 +0200
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-29 11:59 +1000
                Re: Classical entanglement. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-29 06:15 -0700
                Re: Classical entanglement. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 11:48 +1000
  Re: Classical entanglement. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-02 12:06 -0700

csiph-web