Is R real?

[steve_bank]

Technically speaking it is more correct to say Newtonian Mechanics works within established bounds. It fails at the quantum and relativistic scales.

Newtonian works for large relatively slow aggregates of particles like baseballs and planets.

 

[Bronzeage]

Technically speaking it is more correct to say Newtonian Mechanics works within established bounds. It fails at the quantum and relativistic scales.

Newtonian works for large relatively slow aggregates of particles like baseballs and planets.

The way my physics professor explained, Newtonian Mechanics illustrate the special case of a very large body, very close to a small body.

 

[steve_bank]

Technically speaking it is more correct to say Newtonian Mechanics works within established bounds. It fails at the quantum and relativistic scales.

Newtonian works for large relatively slow aggregates of particles like baseballs and planets.

The way my physics professor explained, Newtonian Mechanics illustrate the special case of a very large body, very close to a small body.

I'd have to look up the equation. As velocity gets small compared to C in relativity the equation goes to Newtonian mechanics In other word's Newton's Laws.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No, they are not. They never were. Scientists believed them true for a long time and now they believe otherwise.



No, I didn't. I responded to your claim that models are not true of false and I got that right.

Newton's model is false and always was. And yes, it was also useful and in fact still is, but that doesn't change the fact that it's false.

This falsifies your claim that models are not true or false.

The fault, however, is probably on my end for not being clear. To say that the reals are or are not real depends on the context. That's because they are part of a model which is not the same thing as the objective reality which we model. Models have a recursive objective quality, that is, as a model is is objectively real, but the question of whether that reality is fully equivalent to the subject of the model requires the context.

The thing is, I didn't even address that aspect of your post. How can you say I didn't understand it?

The question of whether models are true or false is distinct from and independent from (the reverse is not true) the question of whether mathematical abstractions are real. You are effectively conflating, as indeed many people do, the epistemological question of the truth of an abstract model with the ontological question whether the model is real, i.e. whether whatever is represented by the model has somehow the same essence as the model. A model need not be real in this sense, or "essentially true", i.e. true in essence, or "fully equivalent" as you put it, in order to be true simpliciter.

The OP concerns both questions, inevitably. Reality implies truth, if only because things are all true of themselves, but truth does't require and therefore doesn't imply reality. If the reverse was true, the notion of truth would be vacuous and people would be idiots talking about truth.
EB

Newton's model is not false.

It's not true so of course it's false. No big deal except for the True Believers.

Wtf are you on about? Show me a single violation of thermodynamics. His inverse square law is not false either. It is merely imprecise at relativistic energy levels. The things you write are kind of idiotic.

Good, at least I know for sure there's no point talking to you.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Technically speaking it is more correct to say Newtonian Mechanics works within established bounds. It fails at the quantum and relativistic scales.

Newtonian works for large relatively slow aggregates of particles like baseballs and planets.

Yes, I agree at least with the idea that a false model could be true if restricted to a subset of the universe..

So, it's not true of the universe.

And of course, even that isn't true in this case. Newton doesn't work for Mercury. And Mercury is still a planet, I think?

There's a reason people started to look for something else.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Technically speaking it is more correct to say Newtonian Mechanics works within established bounds. It fails at the quantum and relativistic scales.

Newtonian works for large relatively slow aggregates of particles like baseballs and planets.

Yes, I agree at least with the idea that a false model could be true if restricted to a subset of the universe..

So, it's not true of the universe.

And of course, even that isn't true in this case. Newton doesn't work for Mercury. And Mercury is still a planet, I think?

There's a reason people started to look for something else.
EB

Blabbering nonsense.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Newton's model is not false.

It's not true so of course it's false. No big deal except for the True Believers.

How is it not true? Is there something else that is true?

Wtf are you on about? Show me a single violation of thermodynamics. His inverse square law is not false either. It is merely imprecise at relativistic energy levels. The things you write are kind of idiotic.

Good, at least I know for sure there's no point talking to you.
EB

That's true of the whole internet but I am among the worst, I agree.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Technically speaking it is more correct to say Newtonian Mechanics works within established bounds. It fails at the quantum and relativistic scales.

Newtonian works for large relatively slow aggregates of particles like baseballs and planets.

Yes, I agree at least with the idea that a false model could be true if restricted to a subset of the universe..

So, it's not true of the universe.

And of course, even that isn't true in this case. Newton doesn't work for Mercury. And Mercury is still a planet, I think?

There's a reason people started to look for something else.
EB

Even relativity is limited to the timespace continuum. Since it doesn't account for quantum behavior, especially non-locality, does that mean it isn't true either? General relativity is a theoretical model of gravity. It is a model, not the reality it's modeling. Just because we don't have anything better, do you think that means we can't have anything better?

 

[fast]

And Mercury is still a planet, I think?

Truth is so fleeting(!), isn’t it?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Technically speaking it is more correct to say Newtonian Mechanics works within established bounds. It fails at the quantum and relativistic scales.

Newtonian works for large relatively slow aggregates of particles like baseballs and planets.

Yes, I agree at least with the idea that a false model could be true if restricted to a subset of the universe..

So, it's not true of the universe.

And of course, even that isn't true in this case. Newton doesn't work for Mercury. And Mercury is still a planet, I think?

There's a reason people started to look for something else.
EB

Blabbering nonsense.

That's obviously not the case. It is the best English you can find on this forum and it's a rational position expressed succinctly.

You, not so good. Your English sucks and you're only ever repeating the received wisdom of our typical engineer drudge. You're the reference around here for that position. You're just tedious, as others have observed again and again.

And rather than try to argue your point, something you've shown yourself again and again unable to do, you just try the one-liner killer. Yeah, well, try again.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

How is it not true? Is there something else that is true?

He's not a bishop? Who else is a bishop?

Read your question again. It just doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, but I can't answer nonsensical questions.

Wtf are you on about? Show me a single violation of thermodynamics. His inverse square law is not false either. It is merely imprecise at relativistic energy levels. The things you write are kind of idiotic.

Good, at least I know for sure there's no point talking to you.
EB

That's true of the whole internet but I am among the worst, I agree.

Good, that's settled then.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Technically speaking it is more correct to say Newtonian Mechanics works within established bounds. It fails at the quantum and relativistic scales.

Newtonian works for large relatively slow aggregates of particles like baseballs and planets.

Yes, I agree at least with the idea that a false model could be true if restricted to a subset of the universe..

So, it's not true of the universe.

And of course, even that isn't true in this case. Newton doesn't work for Mercury. And Mercury is still a planet, I think?

There's a reason people started to look for something else.
EB

Even relativity is limited to the timespace continuum.

Sure, that's what I just said I agreed with Steve. Something true may be true only in relation to a subset of the universe, of indeed a subset of reality.

Since it doesn't account for quantum behavior, especially non-locality, does that mean it isn't true either?

Sure, it may well be true of a limited subset of the universe.

That's what I just said I agreed with Steve. Something true may be true only in relation to a subset of the universe, of indeed a subset of reality.

Remember, I'm not the one saying models can't be true. You're suppose to be the one claiming that. Have you changed your mind and are you just being inconsistent?

General relativity is a theoretical model of gravity. It is a model, not the reality it's modeling.

Blimey, you're getting tedious here. Where did I ever argue that?! I explained, to you, just a few post ago, the subtleties of this question. You don't seem quite able to follow a conversation.

Just because we don't have anything better, do you think that means we can't have anything better?

???

OK, let's stop here.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

And Mercury is still a planet, I think?

Truth is so fleeting(!), isn’t it?

Well, no. Something which is true remains true. Something which is false remains false.

It's very simple. One can say that something is true, and yet what they say may well not be true.

Einstein didn't prove Newton was wrong. It was astronomers who discovered the truth that Newton's theory was wrong. And the messenger was Mercury. It told astronomers the truth. Einstein was just this guy who was there at the right time to conceived of a better theory. A theory closer to the truth, or possibly true. I don't know.
EB

 

[fast]

I guess my subtly went too far. I’ll do better next time.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I guess my subtly went too far. I’ll do better next time.

Let's hope for at least this truth to prevail...
EB

 

[fromderinside]

So you have an enduring example of a truth? I think we need an example for the construct to survive.

 

[fast]

So you have an enduring example of a truth? I think we need an example for the construct to survive.

I’m sitting in a truck, and I’m doing so (sitting in a truck) as I write this post. The truth of that doesn’t later change when I find that I am no longer sitting in a truck, so while it’s the case that any utterance that I’m sitting in a truck will only hold true if I’m at the time of the utterance in fact sitting in the truck, the actual utterance I’m making right now is eternally true, for not only am I sitting in a truck as I say it now 10 minutes before 7 EST, it will be equally as true a million years from now.

 

[Bomb#20]

So you have an enduring example of a truth? I think we need an example for the construct to survive.

I’m sitting in a truck, and I’m doing so (sitting in a truck) as I write this post. The truth of that doesn’t later change when I find that I am no longer sitting in a truck, so while it’s the case that any utterance that I’m sitting in a truck will only hold true if I’m at the time of the utterance in fact sitting in the truck, the actual utterance I’m making right now is eternally true, for not only am I sitting in a truck as I say it now 10 minutes before 7 EST, it will be equally as true a million years from now.

Right, but way more work than necessary -- just write in past tense. Fast was sitting in a truck when he wrote that post. Booth shot Lincoln. Mammals evolved from reptiles. Newtonian mechanics mispredicted Mercury's orbit enough for people to detect the error. Enduring truths all, regardless of future refinements to our understanding of physics.

(Or just skip to the end and pick analytic truths. Bachelors are unmarried. P and (if P then Q) imply Q. 1 + 2 = 3.)

 

[steve_bank]

Yes, but 1 + 1 = 2 is true sitting in a truck or sanding on the moon...how about that!!!

 

[Speakpigeon]

So you have an enduring example of a truth? I think we need an example for the construct to survive.

Sorry I got too late to be first to satisfy your thirst for philosophical enlightenment.

I'm not as optimistic about truth as fast and Bomb#20. I wouldn't give the claim that I am sitting at my desk as an example of truth, let alone an "enduring truth". However, what's the fuss about enduring? A truth is no more a truth for being enduring. You just seem to be confused by some ideological motivations that hardcore sciency types have the secret.

A truth is a statement of fact that is true of some fact. There is a class of statements that can do the job. For example, that you feel tired when you feel tired. That you are in pain when you are in pain. These things are really very important to each of us and that's why we tend to favour that kind of truths. These are all subjective truths. If I say that I am sitting at a desk, that would be a statement about an objective fact and that's the kind of statement we don't really know whether they are true. To make it something we know, you just have to turn it into a statement of subjective fact. If I say I have the impression I'm sitting at my desk then it will be true regardless of your hardcore sciency type scepticism. But we will stop knowing it to be true immediately, once the event will be in the past, just because we don't know the past, not even whether what we remember of our past subjective impression is true. Yet, you can again make it true: I have the impression that I remember Johnny Halliday. Well, I definitely do so that's a true statement, irrespective of what you think. The bad news is that we don't actually know any truths about the physical world, which is why even scientists have sometimes shamelessly to recant their belief system. It's rather funny to see how some of the same are somehow refusing to acknowledge that Newton was wrong. The same who deny there are truths will insist Newton wasn't false. Just comical. Clearly, ideology drive you to deny your own logical self. That's what's really sad.

Still, if we don't have any truths about the physical world, this means we don't know that we won't have any in the future, though to see that happen would require a profound change in our situation, I don't know, something as significant as God coming down to visit us. Rather unlikely.
EB