Why the objectivists will never win!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I could have contrived a different example. Say, lifting a weight with a pully some distance. Question is how much work was done? Maybe Kosko would think, well doesn't the pully axle have friction? Given the limited information available, doesn't that leave some uncertainty or fuzziness as to the amount of work? Wrong answer! Do the math exactly as given.
Straw man again, really. Those questions always have small print like "ignoring the pulley friction" - not pretending it doesn't exist but making a calculation based on certain assumptions. Nothing sinister there, just focussing on one part. I've never been taught science as absolutes, or binary (except maybe boolean logic -- 🙂 (joke))
 
Nothing sinister there...
George, Nobody said anything about sinister, just like nobody said complex numbers are useless.

Other than that, I don't see any attempt at a straw man argument. There is a story about a guy's intuition starting from when he was studying for his undergraduate admission exams. He probably didn't have beers with distinguished scientists by that time. He is thinking about what he is being required to do. For him, he considered it as being required to pretend the world was the math. He didn't have trouble with the math. He had trouble with disconnect between mathematically precise models and reality. It didn't sit right with him, didn't feel right.
 
Last edited:
Nobody's denying friction.

When teaching basic principles, you need to focus on specific points. When I was in school, we investigated the characteristics of an "ideal" op amp. This was necessary to learn the principles involved with applications. I don't believe that any student thought that any op amp was ideal. We all learned how to examine the parameters AFTER we learned the basic theories of operation.

Just like the friction, in the real world an engineer would get nowhere without understanding the limitations of a "fuzzy" reality.

What did they teach you in engineering school Mark?
 
I always thought everything in the quatum world is statistical, so there is a distinctly non-zero, albeit exceedingely small, chance that any particular apple would one day fall upwards.

No?

Jan

Sure.

But does a brick falling off a building fall up because of quantum theory? I'll believe it when you show me the math. I don't think macro events are subject to quantum mechanics, but I sure could be wrong about that.
 
jan.didden said:
I always thought everything in the quatum (sic) world is statistical, so there is a distinctly non-zero, albeit exceedingely (sic) small, chance that any particular apple would one day fall upwards.

>A chimpanzee will eventually type out all the works of Shakespeare if you wait long enough. Of course you wouldn’t have to wait as long if the chimp had taken a few typing lessons.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.