Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

Yes. That may be more true than you realize.

Blah blah blah, taunts are cheap; got anything worthwhile?

 

[untermensche]

It isn't evidence the world uses equations. It is only evidence humans use them.

Are humans not of this world?

Humans are evolved animals with brains.

A ball moving through space is not an evolved animal. It has no brain and can make no calculations.

Can I throw the information across the yard and have my dog bring it back to me?

yes

How would that work?

The whole system is an equation.

Nothing about the system is an equation.

Equations are a human abstraction of the system.

You confuse the abstraction with the thing it is an abstraction of.

What if we used symbols that looked like the objects instead of numbers? Then replace "=" with "from before to after" Should it matter what the symbols look like?

The second you start talking about symbols you talk about an abstraction.

 

[ryan]

Are humans not of this world?

Humans are evolved animals with brains.

A ball moving through space is not an evolved animal. It has no brain and can make no calculations.

I didn't say it does make calculations.

Can I throw the information across the yard and have my dog bring it back to me?

yes

How would that work?

Information also exists outside of the brain. You could have thrown a book. See, http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Entropy_(information_theory).html .

The whole system is an equation.

Nothing about the system is an equation.

Yes it is because the physical values are symmetrical and conserved just like an equation. The visual image of the ball is a symbol just like an equation.

Equations are a human abstraction of the system.

You confuse the abstraction with the thing it is an abstraction of.

But it doesn't matter as long as each unique source has a unique symbol.

What if we used symbols that looked like the objects instead of numbers? Then replace "=" with "from before to after" Should it matter what the symbols look like?

The second you start talking about symbols you talk about an abstraction.

It doesn't matter if we use abstractions. The information that matters is made known to us by its behavior by the information it radiates.

 

[untermensche]

Information also exists outside of the brain. You could have thrown a book.

It isn't the same thing.

There is the ball bouncing all around constrained by the way things are, not "thinking" or somehow using equations, and then there are humans trying desperately to predict the behavior of the ball and being unable to unless the behavior is very simple.

Yes it is because the physical values are symmetrical and conserved just like an equation. The visual image of the ball is a symbol just like an equation.

Equations sit there on paper and do nothing.

They are nothing like a ball bouncing around.

It doesn't matter if we use abstractions. The information that matters is made known to us by its behavior by the information it radiates.

What matters is that we know the difference between our abstractions and that which is abstracted.

 

[ryan]

It isn't the same thing.

There is the ball bouncing all around constrained by the way things are, not "thinking" or somehow using equations, and then there are humans trying desperately to predict the behavior of the ball and being unable to unless the behavior is very simple.

I am not saying that the behavior of the ball makes calculations; I am saying that it is an equation.

Yes it is because the physical values are symmetrical and conserved just like an equation. The visual image of the ball is a symbol just like an equation.

Equations sit there on paper and do nothing.

They are nothing like a ball bouncing around.

They are similar in the most important ways. They are both symmetrical and the values are conserved.

It doesn't matter if we use abstractions. The information that matters is made known to us by its behavior by the information it radiates.

What matters is that we know the difference between our abstractions and that which is abstracted.

The difference does not matter for the purposes of the equation.

 

[untermensche]

I am not saying that the behavior of the ball makes calculations; I am saying that it is an equation.

No it isn't. The behavior can be modeled with equations but the ball and the movement of the ball is not an equation.

Equations are human invented symbols displayed in some way, or existing as thoughts. They do not bounce. They do not move. They sit there and do nothing. A human brain may be able to imagine a ball and an equation at the same time, but they are entirely different things.

They are similar in the most important ways. They are both symmetrical and the values are conserved.

The equation is trying to model the behavior of the ball. So of course it will share some attributes.

But the way a ball moves has absolutely nothing to do with a line on paper.

The line is abstraction, not replication.

What matters is that we know the difference between our abstractions and that which is abstracted.

The difference does not matter for the purposes of the equation.

The difference doesn't matter if you are trying to predict the behavior of the ball.

But that is all the equation can do for you.

I can't bounce an equation off the floor.

 

[ryan]

No it isn't. The behavior can be modeled with equations but the ball and the movement of the ball is not an equation.

Focus only on the ball as it makes a perfect vertical bounce. At t = 0, the ball drops. At t = 1.0 seconds it hits the floor with maximum velocity, and at t = 1.1 seconds it leaves the floor with the same magnitude of velocity as at 1.0 seconds. At t = 2.1, it comes back to its original position. Let's replace the visual images of motion of the ball as it drops and hits the ground with a different image that looks like, [height (t=1.0) = 0 meters, mass (t=1.0) = 2 kg, potential energy (t=1.0) = -h*m*g, diameter (t=1.0) = 0.2 meters, etc] = [height (t=2.1) = 0 meters, mass (t=2.1) = 2 kg, potential energy (t=2.1) = -h*m*g, diameter (t=2.1) = 0.2 meters, etc].

Now, does it matter that we replaced the actual system with these symbols? These symbols simply replaced the frames of the actual event.

Equations are human invented symbols displayed in some way, or existing as thoughts. They do not bounce. They do not move. They sit there and do nothing. A human brain may be able to imagine a ball and an equation at the same time, but they are entirely different things.

They are similar in the most important ways. They are both symmetrical and the values are conserved.

The equation is trying to model the behavior of the ball. So of course it will share some attributes.

But the way a ball moves has absolutely nothing to do with a line on paper.

But I am not saying the ball is only an equation; I am saying that it is an equation.

 

[Juma]

Focus only on the ball as it makes a perfect vertical bounce. At t = 0, the ball drops. At t = 1.0 seconds it hits the floor with maximum velocity, and at t = 1.1 seconds it leaves the floor with the same magnitude of velocity as at 1.0 seconds. At t = 2.1, it comes back to its original position. Let's replace the visual images of motion of the ball as it drops and hits the ground with a different image that looks like, [height (t=1.0) = 0 meters, mass (t=1.0) = 2 kg, potential energy (t=1.0) = -h*m*g, diameter (t=1.0) = 0.2 meters, etc] = [height (t=2.1) = 0 meters, mass (t=2.1) = 2 kg, potential energy (t=2.1) = -h*m*g, diameter (t=2.1) = 0.2 meters, etc].

Now, does it matter that we replaced the actual system with these symbols? These symbols simply replaced the frames of the actual event.

Equations are human invented symbols displayed in some way, or existing as thoughts. They do not bounce. They do not move. They sit there and do nothing. A human brain may be able to imagine a ball and an equation at the same time, but they are entirely different things.

They are similar in the most important ways. They are both symmetrical and the values are conserved.

The equation is trying to model the behavior of the ball. So of course it will share some attributes.

But the way a ball moves has absolutely nothing to do with a line on paper.

But I am not saying the ball is only an equation; I am saying that it is an equation.

But in what way is a ball an equation?

 

[ryan]

Focus only on the ball as it makes a perfect vertical bounce. At t = 0, the ball drops. At t = 1.0 seconds it hits the floor with maximum velocity, and at t = 1.1 seconds it leaves the floor with the same magnitude of velocity as at 1.0 seconds. At t = 2.1, it comes back to its original position. Let's replace the visual images of motion of the ball as it drops and hits the ground with a different image that looks like, [height (t=1.0) = 0 meters, mass (t=1.0) = 2 kg, potential energy (t=1.0) = -h*m*g, diameter (t=1.0) = 0.2 meters, etc] = [height (t=2.1) = 0 meters, mass (t=2.1) = 2 kg, potential energy (t=2.1) = -h*m*g, diameter (t=2.1) = 0.2 meters, etc].

Now, does it matter that we replaced the actual system with these symbols? These symbols simply replaced the frames of the actual event.

Equations are human invented symbols displayed in some way, or existing as thoughts. They do not bounce. They do not move. They sit there and do nothing. A human brain may be able to imagine a ball and an equation at the same time, but they are entirely different things.

They are similar in the most important ways. They are both symmetrical and the values are conserved.

The equation is trying to model the behavior of the ball. So of course it will share some attributes.

But the way a ball moves has absolutely nothing to do with a line on paper.

But I am not saying the ball is only an equation; I am saying that it is an equation.

But in what way is a ball an equation?

We should equate it to something that is in the same interval of time to make this easier to visualise. So let's put it and an identical ball on a balance scale. Assume that the ball's mass is 0.2 kg. Replace the ball with the symbol 0.2 kg. Replace the level scale with the symbol =. Replace the other ball with the symbol 0.2 kg.

Should it matter what symbols we use whether it is the original symbol or one that fills in?

 

[Juma]

Focus only on the ball as it makes a perfect vertical bounce. At t = 0, the ball drops. At t = 1.0 seconds it hits the floor with maximum velocity, and at t = 1.1 seconds it leaves the floor with the same magnitude of velocity as at 1.0 seconds. At t = 2.1, it comes back to its original position. Let's replace the visual images of motion of the ball as it drops and hits the ground with a different image that looks like, [height (t=1.0) = 0 meters, mass (t=1.0) = 2 kg, potential energy (t=1.0) = -h*m*g, diameter (t=1.0) = 0.2 meters, etc] = [height (t=2.1) = 0 meters, mass (t=2.1) = 2 kg, potential energy (t=2.1) = -h*m*g, diameter (t=2.1) = 0.2 meters, etc].

Now, does it matter that we replaced the actual system with these symbols? These symbols simply replaced the frames of the actual event.

Equations are human invented symbols displayed in some way, or existing as thoughts. They do not bounce. They do not move. They sit there and do nothing. A human brain may be able to imagine a ball and an equation at the same time, but they are entirely different things.

They are similar in the most important ways. They are both symmetrical and the values are conserved.

The equation is trying to model the behavior of the ball. So of course it will share some attributes.

But the way a ball moves has absolutely nothing to do with a line on paper.

But I am not saying the ball is only an equation; I am saying that it is an equation.

But in what way is a ball an equation?

We should equate it to something that is in the same interval of time to make this easier to visualise. So let's put it and an identical ball on a balance scale. Assume that the ball's mass is 0.2 kg. Replace the ball with the symbol 0.2 kg. Replace the level scale with the symbol =. Replace the other ball with the symbol 0.2 kg.

Should it matter what symbols we use whether it is the original symbol or one that fills in?

The ball (or rather the structure that is the reason for that we experience as a ball ) is no symbol.

 

[ryan]

We should equate it to something that is in the same interval of time to make this easier to visualise. So let's put it and an identical ball on a balance scale. Assume that the ball's mass is 0.2 kg. Replace the ball with the symbol 0.2 kg. Replace the level scale with the symbol =. Replace the other ball with the symbol 0.2 kg.

Should it matter what symbols we use whether it is the original symbol or one that fills in?

The ball (or rather the structure that is the reason for that we experience as a ball ) is no symbol.

I know it isn't a symbol; well I guess it could be a symbol of itself. Anyways, why does it matter what the structure actually is?

 

[Juma]

The ball (or rather the structure that is the reason for that we experience as a ball ) is no symbol.

I know it isn't a symbol; well I guess it could be a symbol of itself. Anyways, why does it matter what the structure actually is?

Because you say it is equations and symbols. But you have not explained how.

 

[ryan]

I know it isn't a symbol; well I guess it could be a symbol of itself. Anyways, why does it matter what the structure actually is?

Because you say it is equations and symbols. But you have not explained how.

We give meaning to the symbols written on a piece of paper in the form of an equation, so why can't we do the same for the real thing?

 

[Juma]

Because you say it is equations and symbols. But you have not explained how.

We give meaning to the symbols written on a piece of paper in the form of an equation, so why can't we do the same for the real thing?

That doesnt make sense. There are meaning in written marks because we infer intention to them. And one of these possible intentions is to convey equations.

 

[ryan]

We give meaning to the symbols written on a piece of paper in the form of an equation, so why can't we do the same for the real thing?

That doesnt make sense. There are meaning in written marks because we infer intention to them. And one of these possible intentions is to convey equations.

How are you not making sense of this?

Replace one ball with the number 1. Replace the other identical ball with the number 1. Replace the even scale with =.

Equations seem to be more natural than the symbols that we use to denote them. If anything, it is our equations that we put on paper that are not actually equations. The actual equations come from our imaginations that there is an object on one side of the equation that equals/is the object on the other side of the equation.

 

[untermensche]

Replace one ball with the number 1.

I think this is ridiculous, but what if we talk about a cheeseburger.

Can we replace the cheeseburger with the number 1 and eat the number 1 instead?

Will there be a difference?

 

[ryan]

Replace one ball with the number 1.

I think this is ridiculous, but what if we talk about a cheeseburger.

Can we replace the cheeseburger with the number 1 and eat the number 1 instead?

Will there be a difference?

I think a better analogy would be to put two identical cheeseburgers on a scale, and then replace them with the number 1.

 

[untermensche]

I think this is ridiculous, but what if we talk about a cheeseburger.

Can we replace the cheeseburger with the number 1 and eat the number 1 instead?

Will there be a difference?

I think a better analogy would be to put two identical cheeseburgers on a scale, and then replace them with the number 1.

The number 1 is a concept. It has no weight or nutritional value.

 

[ryan]

I think a better analogy would be to put two identical cheeseburgers on a scale, and then replace them with the number 1.

The number 1 is a concept. It has no weight or nutritional value.

The number 1 simply represents the property of the ball's mass. Whatever this mass actually is doesn't matter in terms of equations.

 

[Mageth]

I think this is ridiculous, but what if we talk about a cheeseburger.

Can we replace the cheeseburger with the number 1 and eat the number 1 instead?

Will there be a difference?

I think a better analogy would be to put two identical cheeseburgers on a scale, and then replace them with the number 1.

Or put a cheeseburger on one side, and some horseshit that weighs the same on the other side. Then replace both with the number 1, and the scale with the equal sign. So now we have cheeseburger = horseshit!

- - - Updated - - -

The number 1 is a concept. It has no weight or nutritional value.

The number 1 simply represents the property of the ball's mass. Whatever this mass actually is doesn't matter in terms of equations.

And a pile of horseshit could have the same mass as the ball.