Where is "here"?

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:29 am

You keep saying the same silly stuff. I keep repeating the obvious objections. You never respond to those objections and then repeat the same silly stuff 10 posts later.
For example you keep repeating that planks constant is only part of a human narrative and has nothing to do with reality. If it has nothing to do with reality,why is it so effective in technology. That is why I asked you if you were a Berkely enthusiast. You must believe that to be is to be percieved.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:33 am

Obvious Leo wrote:
raw_thought wrote:Leo is actually saying that planks constant was not 6.62607004X10(-34) m(2) Kg/s until the universe changed it!!! That is outrageously silly.
That is like saying that the universe changed the size of every atom in the universe to facilitate life.
You do not have the right to translate my words for me, particularly since you so clearly don't understand them. I will say what I am saying and you will either respond to them or not as you see fit but you will not continue to interpret my words for me. I am saying that Planck's constant is an epistemic derivation of a particular mathematical model and that it has no ontological provenance whatsoever. In other words Planck's constant Is NOT a property of the universe but a property of one particular human narrative of the universe. This is what I am saying and if you wish to refute it then this is the statement you will address.

Actually, I proved that that is what you are implying. You keep saying that Planks constant are constantly changing (false) and that is because people keep changing their minds as to what it is (silly! That is like saying that the size of the earth changed when we realized that it is bigger.)

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:37 am

I graduated from university and am familiar with your strategy. Use big words to disquise the fact that you are talking nonsense. That part I quoted when translated into normal english is saying that planks constant has no relation to reality. It is only a human narrative. In other words only words that do not describe reality and that is silly.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:41 am

raw_thought wrote:You are obviously confused. Suppose I say that my house is 5 miles from work. You will say that that is only a mathematical construct that has nothing to do with reality because "miles" is a human invention. That is absurd. I agree that we decide the units but that does not mean that we cannot use them to describe reality. Similarly, humans created the English language. However, that does not mean that books cannot describe reality.

The fact that books are a human narrative does not mean that they dont describe reality.
Similarily, "miles" is a human invention. However that does not mean that saying that my home is 5 miles from work does not describe an objective reality.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:44 am

There is no physicist anywhere that says that planks constant does not describe reality!!!
It is the smallest distance possible.

Obvious Leo · Post by **Obvious Leo** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:53 am

raw_thought wrote:There is no physicist anywhere that says that planks constant does not describe reality!!!

This statement is false and any philosopher of science can confirm this, as would all the the major players in physics. None of the models of physics describe reality because that's simply not what they are designed to do. They are designed to model reality only and as soon as they find a better way of doing it they drop their models like a hot spud. Planck's constant will have its use-by date in physics just like everything else in the history of science has had a use-by date before it. If you wish to refute this statement kindly present your argument.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:56 am

Planks constant is the smallest distance possible. That is not a description of reality????

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:57 am

A use by date value? In other words planks constant changes???

No educated person believes that.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:01 am

Of course a model is not the reality it models. But that does not mean that a model does not describe reality. To say otherwise is like saying that a photograph does not show us reality.
When someone shows me a photo of their baby I then know what the actual baby looks like.

Obvious Leo · Post by **Obvious Leo** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:08 am

raw_thought wrote:Planks constant is the smallest distance possible. That is not a description of reality????

No it isn't. What does it mean?

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:13 am

It means that matter is quantisized. There is nothing smaller then planks constant.
That is why an electron jumps to a higher orbit without going thru the seperating distance.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:15 am

raw_thought wrote:Of course a model is not the reality it models. But that does not mean that a model does not describe reality. To say otherwise is like saying that a photograph does not show us reality.
When someone shows me a photo of their baby I then know what the actual baby looks like.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:17 am

Anyway, I got to go. Wife and all that. I will be back tomorrow!

PoeticUniverse · Post by **PoeticUniverse** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 2:24 am

raw_thought wrote:It is a property of the universe that nothing can be smaller then planks constant.

You probably mean the Planck length.

raw_thought · Post by **raw_thought** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 2:34 am

It is called planks constant. Google it. However, I do not want our debate to be about semantics .
A rose is a rose by any other name.

Philosophy Now Forum

Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?

Re: Where is "here"?