Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:11 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:01 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 2:29 pm
Sure. That measurement describes reality well. Making a theory that fits the measurement is another hassle.


I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

You raised the issue - now in my words - that measuring is approximate. There can always be error (somewhere out in the decimal places) but also we don't/can't chase the decimal places in a measurement all the way out. (unless, perhaps, the universe is quantized, where there is a minimum length, but that's another topics). So, measurements are fallible, hence, you argued, if I understood correctly, any theory based on measurement cannot be perfect.

Correct. That is what I mean.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:01 pm But above I was getting a different, perhaps incorrect impression, that the very working with the physical could not produce perfect theory about ultimate reality. Not merely because of measurement being inexact, but.....

I think it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to produce a theory that is perfect given perfect measurement.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:01 pm And I'm not sure. But it seemed like it was the wrong category for getting at ultimate truths. Perhaps something in relation to induction vs. deduction or physics vs. metaphysics. Not that you said all this explicitly or any of it, but it was my impression

Sure, we are talking metaphysics here rather than physics.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 4:35 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:11 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:01 pm
You raised the issue - now in my words - that measuring is approximate. There can always be error (somewhere out in the decimal places) but also we don't/can't chase the decimal places in a measurement all the way out. (unless, perhaps, the universe is quantized, where there is a minimum length, but that's another topics). So, measurements are fallible, hence, you argued, if I understood correctly, any theory based on measurement cannot be perfect.

Correct. That is what I mean.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:01 pm But above I was getting a different, perhaps incorrect impression, that the very working with the physical could not produce perfect theory about ultimate reality. Not merely because of measurement being inexact, but.....

I think it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to produce a theory that is perfect given perfect measurement.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:01 pm And I'm not sure. But it seemed like it was the wrong category for getting at ultimate truths. Perhaps something in relation to induction vs. deduction or physics vs. metaphysics. Not that you said all this explicitly or any of it, but it was my impression

Sure, we are talking metaphysics here rather than physics.

Right, so my question is could the types of theories in physics, for example, NOT tell us about ultimate reality for two reasons
1) the inexactness of measures
and

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:01 pm 2) because it is dealing with physics, empricism rather than, say, deduction metaphysics.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:01 pm I actually think that physics also deals with metaphysics, but that's a separate issue.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 11:20 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 6:57 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 3:06 pm
Yes, more progress. Better measurement allows us to have a better model for the reality.

BUT, ABSOLUTELY ALL measurements can NEVER be perfect, to the last digit correct?

If yes, then 'you' could NEVER EVER arrive AT the 'model of reality', right?

if yes, then even 'this model of reality', which 'you' CLAIM here IS A 'fact', could NEVER be PERFECTLY True, Right, and Factual EXACTLY, agreed?

I am talking about facts about reality and not a theory of reality.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:01 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 11:20 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 6:57 am

BUT, ABSOLUTELY ALL measurements can NEVER be perfect, to the last digit correct?

If yes, then 'you' could NEVER EVER arrive AT the 'model of reality', right?

if yes, then even 'this model of reality', which 'you' CLAIM here IS A 'fact', could NEVER be PERFECTLY True, Right, and Factual EXACTLY, agreed?

I am talking about facts about reality and not a theory of reality.

So, TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

Also, TELL 'us' WHY 'the distance' between the moon and the earth, TO the last mile could NEVER be MEASURED, so-called 'perfectly'.

And/or, TELL 'us' WHY 'the amount' of water put in a container could NEVER be MEASURED so-called 'perfectly', TO the last gallon?

Oh, and by the way, WHO MEASURES, or DECIDES, what IS 'reality', or NOT? And, are these MEASUREMENTS and/or DECISIONS DONE 'perfectly'?

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:04 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:01 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 11:20 am
I am talking about facts about reality and not a theory of reality.

So, TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

Also, TELL 'us' WHY 'the distance' between the moon and the earth, TO the last mile could NEVER be MEASURED, so-called 'perfectly'.

And/or, TELL 'us' WHY 'the amount' of water put in a container could NEVER be MEASURED so-called 'perfectly', TO the last gallon?

Oh, and by the way, WHO MEASURES, or DECIDES, what IS 'reality', or NOT? And, are these MEASUREMENTS and/or DECISIONS DONE 'perfectly'?

I am talking about the metaphysical aspect of reality that any reality should respect. It is based on clear facts.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:13 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:04 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:01 pm

So, TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

Also, TELL 'us' WHY 'the distance' between the moon and the earth, TO the last mile could NEVER be MEASURED, so-called 'perfectly'.

And/or, TELL 'us' WHY 'the amount' of water put in a container could NEVER be MEASURED so-called 'perfectly', TO the last gallon?

Oh, and by the way, WHO MEASURES, or DECIDES, what IS 'reality', or NOT? And, are these MEASUREMENTS and/or DECISIONS DONE 'perfectly'?

I am talking about the metaphysical aspect of reality that any reality should respect. It is based on clear facts.

AND, I SAID:

TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

BUT 'you' can NOT DO 'this', can 'you', "bahman"?

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:48 pm but can you make a perfect dwelling from a perfect measurement?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrBx6mAWYPU

-Imp

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:15 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:13 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:04 pm
I am talking about the metaphysical aspect of reality that any reality should respect. It is based on clear facts.

AND, I SAID:

TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

BUT 'you' can NOT DO 'this', can 'you', "bahman"?

Facts are not measured on anything. They are true, as simple as that.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 9:33 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:15 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:13 pm

AND, I SAID:

TELL 'us' what are 'facts' MEASURED ON, or AGAINST, EXACTLY?

BUT 'you' can NOT DO 'this', can 'you', "bahman"?

Facts are not measured on anything. They are true, as simple as that.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' KEEP MISSING the QUESTIONING, AND the ACTUAL POINT, here.

BUT 'this' IS JUST what the Intelligently BLIND and the DEAF, ACTUALLY, DO.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:03 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 9:33 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:15 pm
Facts are not measured on anything. They are true, as simple as that.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' KEEP MISSING the QUESTIONING, AND the ACTUAL POINT, here.

BUT 'this' IS JUST what the Intelligently BLIND and the DEAF, ACTUALLY, DO.

You don't understand what I am saying, do you?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:18 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:03 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 9:33 am

OBVIOUSLY 'you' KEEP MISSING the QUESTIONING, AND the ACTUAL POINT, here.

BUT 'this' IS JUST what the Intelligently BLIND and the DEAF, ACTUALLY, DO.

You don't understand what I am saying, do you?

'you' HAVE PROVEN that 'you' DO NOT.

'you' are SAYING, and CLAIMING, that one can NOT make a so-called 'perfect theory' from a so-called 'imperfect measurement'.

Now. 'I', and "others", have ALREADY SHOWN HOW and WHY 'this' IS Incorrect.

But 'you' do NOT understand what 'I', and "others", have been SAYING here, do 'you'?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:18 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:03 pm
You don't understand what I am saying, do you?

'you' HAVE PROVEN that 'you' DO NOT.

'you' are SAYING, and CLAIMING, that one can NOT make a so-called 'perfect theory' from a so-called 'imperfect measurement'.

Now. 'I', and "others", have ALREADY SHOWN HOW and WHY 'this' IS Incorrect.

But 'you' do NOT understand what 'I', and "others", have been SAYING here, do 'you'?

You have proven that you do not understand.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:10 pm Nope. All theories are based on experiemental results which can never be perfetly accurate. The results show tendancies.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:29 pm

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:21 pm Bats have telepatic communication with seagulls

Whats perfect or imperfect about that theory? As a theory?

By theory, I mean something that can tell you the quantitative features of a system. What you are talking about is qualitative.