Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Kyo · 12-16-2003, 02:56 PM

- Our investigations into various matters necessarily come with some degree of optimism: we assume that we will be able to conclude or at least learn something from our investigations. If we believed from the beginning that what we were investigating was, by definition (<- this is important), beyond our ability (aided by any tools), to perceive, we certainly would not bother investigating it, as we are doomed to failure before the attempt is even made.

- Taken another way, there is a certain practical sense that goes into everything we research and study: if it can affect us in some way, then we are naturally able to perceive it and therefore must be able to learn something by investigating it, even if our knowledge is not comprehensive. It is important to see that if an object or event cannot be perceived or experienced, then by definition it cannot affect us or have any bearing on our lives whatsoever - we would not, in fact, even be aware of its existence, and therefore would not know and/or think about attempting to investigate it.

- I assume that this thread is inspired at least in part by and attempts to address our attempts at creating some kind of unified scientific system which we could then use to predict the movement and behavior of particles and energy about which sufficient information is known. My point in this specific case, then, is that we should be able to eventually create a system which coincides with our perception. Whether or not that our system is 'actually' correct is, in my opinion, irrelevant, so long as the system is able to describe what we want it to describe, the way we believe it should be described.

- As a sort of wrap-up or clarification, consider two laws: y=x^2, and y=2x. Obviously, the two are not equivalent for all x. However, assume that the only number which we can perceive, and which has any bearing on our existence, is x=2. Then the two systems produce equivalent results, and are, in our minds, equivalent. The fact that they are not equivalent for numbers beyond our perception is irrelevant, since it will never occur to us, nor become apparent to us, or in any way affect us at all. In short, for all practical purposes the two systems are equal.

12-16-2003, 02:56 PM	#5 (permalink)
Kyo Crazy	- Our investigations into various matters necessarily come with some degree of optimism: we assume that we will be able to conclude or at least learn something from our investigations. If we believed from the beginning that what we were investigating was, *by definition* (<- this is important), beyond our ability (aided by any tools), to perceive, we certainly would not bother investigating it, as we are doomed to failure before the attempt is even made. - Taken another way, there is a certain practical sense that goes into everything we research and study: if it can affect us in some way, then we are naturally able to perceive it and therefore must be able to learn something by investigating it, even if our knowledge is not comprehensive. It is important to see that if an object or event cannot be perceived or experienced, then by definition it cannot affect us or have any bearing on our lives whatsoever - we would not, in fact, even be aware of its existence, and therefore would not know and/or think about attempting to investigate it. - I assume that this thread is inspired at least in part by and attempts to address our attempts at creating some kind of unified scientific system which we could then use to predict the movement and behavior of particles and energy about which sufficient information is known. My point in this specific case, then, is that we should be able to eventually create a system which coincides with our perception. Whether or not that our system is 'actually' correct is, in my opinion, irrelevant, so long as the system is able to describe what we want it to describe, the way we believe it should be described. - As a sort of wrap-up or clarification, consider two laws: y=x^2, and y=2x. Obviously, the two are not equivalent for all x. However, assume that the only number which we can perceive, and which has any bearing on our existence, is x=2. Then the two systems produce equivalent results, and are, in our minds, equivalent. The fact that they are not equivalent for numbers beyond our perception is irrelevant, since it will never occur to us, nor become apparent to us, or in any way affect us at all. In short, for all practical purposes the two systems are equal. __________________ Sure I have a heart; it's floating in a jar in my closet, along with my tonsils, my appendix, and all of the other useless organs I ripped out.