The central problem of induction is learning the tools of micro and macro scale…. while at the same time abandoning reliance on the intuition “of human scale”.
I like this positioning because it explains the cause of the difficulty for humans: the intuition of human scale.
Theme: Causality
-
The central problem of induction is learning the tools of micro and macro scale.
The central problem of induction is learning the tools of micro and macro scale…. while at the same time abandoning reliance on the intuition “of human scale”. I like this positioning because it explains the cause of the difficulty for humans: the intuition of human scale. -
The central problem of induction is learning the tools of micro and macro scale.
The central problem of induction is learning the tools of micro and macro scale…. while at the same time abandoning reliance on the intuition “of human scale”.
I like this positioning because it explains the cause of the difficulty for humans: the intuition of human scale.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-19 14:35:00 UTC
-
Just to foster some thought: The difference in induction between pet, child, and
Just to foster some thought: The difference in induction between pet, child, and scientist, is that while we all study constant relations, we study the constant relations at an inflation(bigger) or a deflation(smaller) of human (mammalian) scale – just as we study the universe at the subatomic, physical, chemical, biological, behavioral, and sentient scales. While meaningful (marginally different) causal density remains constantly complex across those scales, observability above our ability to act and below our ability to act rapidly decreases, forcing us to create physical and logical instruments to construct proxies for observations of constant relations at macro and micro scales. But either way, we seek operations (changes in state), constant relations(Stable states), and predictions of future states. -
Just to foster some thought: The difference in induction between pet, child, and
Just to foster some thought: The difference in induction between pet, child, and scientist, is that while we all study constant relations, we study the constant relations at an inflation(bigger) or a deflation(smaller) of human (mammalian) scale – just as we study the universe at the subatomic, physical, chemical, biological, behavioral, and sentient scales. While meaningful (marginally different) causal density remains constantly complex across those scales, observability above our ability to act and below our ability to act rapidly decreases, forcing us to create physical and logical instruments to construct proxies for observations of constant relations at macro and micro scales. But either way, we seek operations (changes in state), constant relations(Stable states), and predictions of future states. -
Just to foster some thought: The difference in induction between pet, child, and
Just to foster some thought: The difference in induction between pet, child, and scientist, is that while we all study constant relations, we study the constant relations at an inflation(bigger) or a deflation(smaller) of human (mammalian) scale – just as we study the universe at the subatomic, physical, chemical, biological, behavioral, and sentient scales. While meaningful (marginally different) causal density remains constantly complex across those scales, observability above our ability to act and below our ability to act rapidly decreases, forcing us to create physical and logical instruments to construct proxies for observations of constant relations at macro and micro scales. But either way, we seek operations (changes in state), constant relations(Stable states), and predictions of future states.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-19 12:13:00 UTC
-
Clarity (Time)
—“We are constantly moving through spacetime but we just trade movement in time for movement in space and vice versa, just like a function in cartesian space trades position in the x axis for position in the y axis. Gravity is reducible to a change in the elasticity of that trade.”—Thomas Wiltshire Simple. WHY IS CURT WRITING ABOUT THIS: Today. One philosopher and four physicists debating time, and sounding like a bunch of chipmunks. The underlying question is whether what we call time (rate of change) is merely altered by the expansion and contraction of space, or whether it is a product of the expansion and contraction of space. I can’t understand logically how it can be the latter, and still produce a dynamic universe of ANY kind. And as far as i know that is the the question, and we can’t answer it. But saying that time doesn’t exist is just pseudoscience. And we don’t know more than that (that I know of). And I haven’t ever encountered anything in physics that I can’t understand once we state it operationally. The universe is not complicated it is merley causally dense with operations (symmetries) forming by coincidence at increasingly complex (dense) levels. I have seen nothing in the universe at ALL that cannot be represented mathematically and geometrically once we understand the prevailing forces. The history of human knowledge expansion is this: everything is far more simple than we intuit. It’s people who are complicated. Because most of what we do is ‘lie’. -
CLARITY (TIME) —“We are constantly moving through spacetime but we just trade
CLARITY (TIME)
—“We are constantly moving through spacetime but we just trade movement in time for movement in space and vice versa, just like a function in cartesian space trades position in the x axis for position in the y axis. Gravity is reducible to a change in the elasticity of that trade.”—Thomas Wiltshire
Simple.
WHY IS CURT WRITING ABOUT THIS:
Today. One philosopher and four physicists debating time, and sounding like a bunch of chipmunks. The underlying question is whether what we call time (rate of change) is merely altered by the expansion and contraction of space, or whether it is a product of the expansion and contraction of space.
I can’t understand logically how it can be the latter, and still produce a dynamic universe of ANY kind.
And as far as i know that is the the question, and we can’t answer it.
But saying that time doesn’t exist is just pseudoscience. And we don’t know more than that (that I know of). And I haven’t ever encountered anything in physics that I can’t understand once we state it operationally.
The universe is not complicated it is merley causally dense with operations (symmetries) forming by coincidence at increasingly complex (dense) levels.
I have seen nothing in the universe at ALL that cannot be represented mathematically and geometrically once we understand the prevailing forces.
The history of human knowledge expansion is this: everything is far more simple than we intuit. It’s people who are complicated. Because most of what we do is ‘lie’.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-16 12:51:00 UTC
-
Clarity (Time)
—“We are constantly moving through spacetime but we just trade movement in time for movement in space and vice versa, just like a function in cartesian space trades position in the x axis for position in the y axis. Gravity is reducible to a change in the elasticity of that trade.”—Thomas Wiltshire Simple. WHY IS CURT WRITING ABOUT THIS: Today. One philosopher and four physicists debating time, and sounding like a bunch of chipmunks. The underlying question is whether what we call time (rate of change) is merely altered by the expansion and contraction of space, or whether it is a product of the expansion and contraction of space. I can’t understand logically how it can be the latter, and still produce a dynamic universe of ANY kind. And as far as i know that is the the question, and we can’t answer it. But saying that time doesn’t exist is just pseudoscience. And we don’t know more than that (that I know of). And I haven’t ever encountered anything in physics that I can’t understand once we state it operationally. The universe is not complicated it is merley causally dense with operations (symmetries) forming by coincidence at increasingly complex (dense) levels. I have seen nothing in the universe at ALL that cannot be represented mathematically and geometrically once we understand the prevailing forces. The history of human knowledge expansion is this: everything is far more simple than we intuit. It’s people who are complicated. Because most of what we do is ‘lie’. -
Gravity and Expansion determine the rate of change of that trade. The idea that
Gravity and Expansion determine the rate of change of that trade.
The idea that changes at different rates at different velocities consist of nothing other than experience, is nonsense, because all change in velocity produces uniform changes in everything at every level of reality.
If we send a mechanical device, or a decaying radioactive element to space and back they do in fact change at different (miniscule) rates. So it’s not psychological phenomenon.
I hate pseudoscientific nonsense.
AFAIK its just as likely that the rate of change is exaggerated by the expansion and contraction of space time, but that the rate of change is a constant (time), as it is that time is fully dependent upon the rate of change of the universe, and that it ceases if expansion ceases.
I mean, I would love it if someone would correct me if I err, but you know, I haven’t found anything in any discipline that is terribly complicated.
In fact, most of the problems of complexity were manufactured by the development of symbols. If we had done mathematics like they did in the time of newton then every idiot in the world would understand it.
To say time passes, is simply a statement of memory. To say that all changes in state occur in sequence and that such a sequence occurs independent of perception, regardless of whether space-time is expanding or contracting.
I perceive a sequence of changes in state. We can increase our velocity and slow or decrease our velocity and speed changes, but we cannot reverse it, nor can we speed or slow it to extremes.
Now, there is a vast difference between observing phenomenon and travelling phenomenon. Light is just a view into history. And that light-history may be created at different rates. that’s all.
I am not sure why this leads philosophers and scientists to disagree – or to fail to articulate such differences.
I suspect that it is the open question of whether time (change) exists (and universe exists) beyond the expansion of our universe. (or if we are even correct about our vision of a universe.)
Public Physics has become all too much like magic.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-16 11:44:00 UTC