Debate: Penguin vs Gyrene

[Penguin]

I'm not claiming that at all. in my example the parts of the theory that use maths can be proved, they are either true or false. The parts of the theory that rely on observation or measurement cannot be proved, they are best guesses at the properties of reality that we are trying to model.

If any parts of the theory cannot be proved, the entire theory cannot be proved.

Because all empirical science relies to some degree on observation or measurement, its theories cannot therefore be proved.

Again, it depends on the parameters given.

If you give me more and more useful information, I can give you a better theory.  However, if you tell me to do what Kirk told Spock to do: "Build an interstellar transmitter out of bear skin and sticks", I'll probably end up giving you something that looks like a pipe-dream gone wild.

Also, the amount of information that we have already is so large that the ratio of possibilities from a physicist's point of view to the amount of possibilities for the person running the program is absurd.  Sure, you could, given enough energy (in this case provided by anti-matter annihalation), you could get to Mars in a matter of weeks.  However, just producing just a tablespoon of anti-matter would bankrupt the United States of America.

As you can see, it's all about the parameters, they control the outcome. Thus, scientists try to control the parameters as much as they can; but they aren't all-powerful (which oddly enough, by its very defenition, is impossible), they're just average joes like you and me with a job that might actually pay very little at all.

-Penguin

[RTHolmes]

Again, it depends on the parameters given.

no it doesnt.

[Penguin]

Yes it does.  Here's a perfect example, we can only go slightly slower than the local speed of light due the fact as you approach it, your mass becomes infinitely great.  Let's say that we are in a place where the speed of light is lower, therefore our maximum speed is lower as well.  Interestingly enough, one could argue that there's a maximum temperature as well, since all heat is is vibrating (and therefore moving) particles.

As you can see, parameter's change the results. 

-Penguin 

 

[RTHolmes]

no it doesnt.

empirical science by definition requires observation and measurement. therefore theories in empirical science cannot ever be formally proved.

what "parameters" can you apply to refute the above hypothesis?

[Penguin]

no it doesnt.

empirical science by definition requires observation and measurement. therefore theories in empirical science cannot ever be formally proved.

what "parameters" can you apply to refute the above hypothesis?

That's not even an experiment.  And yes, if I gave you infinite time, money and data (along with the methods to interpret it), you could make theories into theorums.

-Penguin

[FireDrgn]

  RTHomes   Thank you.  Now I understand what your saying. 

I still think there is a disconnect tho.  Are we limited by language?

Empirical science requires  observation and measurement.  How is basic math not empirical science?

<S>

[RTHolmes]

  RTHomes   Thank you.  Now I understand what your saying.

good and thanks for sticking at it trying to understand

And yes, if I gave you infinite time, money and data (along with the methods to interpret it), you could make theories into theorums.

for the science that we do, that certainly isnt an option so my hypothesis still stands. in order for this to be possible it would require a perfect model of reality. I havent seen any reasonable arguments that suggest this is possible, and a wide range of arguments that suggest it would be impossible. if you want to look into it further its a problem of determination, but be warned, as philosophy goes its a fairly wide and extremely deep problem. you're going to need a very long reading list to get your head around it

[Penguin]

good and thanks for sticking at it trying to understand


for the science that we do, that certainly isnt an option so my hypothesis still stands. in order for this to be possible it would require a perfect model of reality. I havent seen any reasonable arguments that suggest this is possible, and a wide range of arguments that suggest it would be impossible. if you want to look into it further its a problem of determination, but be warned, as philosophy goes its a fairly wide and extremely deep problem. you're going to need a very long reading list to get your head around it

I would gladly like to learn about this determination you speak of, but I was illustrating that impossible problems can only be solved by even more impossible solutions.  Realize that it's all about the data we have and the parameters for accuracy and focus we set.

-Penguin

[FireDrgn]

Only a true theory  can be proven true.  A false theory  can NEVER be proven true.  A false theory can only be proven false.  A theorem presupposes a already true theory.

[Denholm]

If humans are not perfect, then why are our sciences perfect?
If humans are not perfect, why are our mathematics perfect?


We invented both methods for discovering and solving problems. Therefore, by definition of imperfection, our works will also be imperfect.

[Penguin]

Oops, I concede that forgot to mention that.  Here it is, fixed:

If I gave you all of the data you could need, and the methods to put it together, and infinite time and resources, you could make all of our true theories into theorums.  However, we have already established that our theories are very close to what is real.  So right now we're in the buisness of new theories on new things and tuning up the old ones.

If humans are not perfect, then why are our sciences perfect?
If humans are not perfect, why are our mathematics perfect?


We invented both methods for discovering and solving problems. Therefore, by definition of imperfection, our works will also be imperfect.

Nope, the constants of e and pi would exist one way or another, the only thing that we really defined was doing it all in the base ten (hint, number of fingers).

-Penguin

[Denholm]

I never said the constants don't exist, I said our analysis of these constants (such as our origins) will always be flawed. Unless you're perfect (which you yourself know you're not), your theories, ideas, and calculations will be flawed.

[Penguin]

I never said the constants don't exist, I said our analysis of these constants (such as our origins) will always be flawed. Unless you're perfect (which you yourself know you're not), your theories, ideas, and calculations will be flawed.

I would like to see you argue with an atomic bomb; e=mc² in action.  I would like you to find a triangle in which all of the angles do not add up to 180 degrees, and calculate the growth of bacteria in a dish without using e.  Furthermore, prove to me that the ratio of the circumfrence of a circle in relation to it's diameter is not equal to Pi.  There's no interpretation of e^{i (pi symbol)}= -1, it's there, it exists, and we have the proof to back it up.

-Penguin

[bozon]

Yes it does.  Here's a perfect example, we can only go slightly slower than the local speed of light due the fact as you approach it, your mass becomes infinitely great.  Let's say that we are in a place where the speed of light is lower, therefore our maximum speed is lower as well.  Interestingly enough, one could argue that there's a maximum temperature as well, since all heat is is vibrating (and therefore moving) particles.

If I understand you meaning, both examples are physically wrong:
1. A massive particle cannot go faster than the speed described as the speed of light in vacuum. The speed of light in matter does not matter (haha pun intended).
2. Temperature is a measure of energy. The speed of light does not limit maximum energy. The kinetic energy keeps increasing without limit even though the speed in length/time units asymptotically approach the speed of light. There are many places in the universe where thermal particles are moving and colliding at speeds that are over 99% the speed of light. There is no theoretical maximum though practically, at some point it would hard to avoid loosing energy to the production of new massive particles in every interaction.

[FireDrgn]

I never said the constants don't exist, I said our analysis of these constants (such as our origins) will always be flawed. Unless you're perfect (which you yourself know you're not), your theories, ideas, and calculations will be flawed.

How do you know constants exsist if your always flawed?
Not perfect how? What is your criteria for perfect?       YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW WHAT PERFECT IS TO CLAIM THAT!!!

If your statment is true. and your caclculations are always flawed  you can not know what perfect is...

<S>

We did not invent anything. We can only discover what is already here.