Hijack from Units?

[Ragingmoron]

53 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s descriptive. 3 meters is not the same thing as 3 kg or 3 seconds.

Arguing about “truth” is a red herring.

 

A meter, a kilogram, or a second are all units made up by our ancestors that from my perspective we now take for granted. Each can be further subdivided (centimeters (1/100), millimeters (1/1000), nanometers (1/ 1 billion) ... 1/∞; gram (1/1) , milligram (1/1000), nanogram (1/1 billion)... 1/∞ or accumulated (meter (1*1), kilometer (1*1000)... 1*∞). No matter what unit you come up with, you can describe anything relevant to the type of unit (space, time, or both) but never accurately. The Singularity is at the heart of every unit. That is why I say there is only one Truth.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

My point was that all units lack precision by their nature, therefore a number value multiplied by a unit doesn't reveal anything true. I don't want to say it's meaningless because it has relative meaning, even though a meter is ultimately a figment of the imagination. Meaning is ascribed, but nature is absolute. No relative unit can ever tell you anything true about reality, it can only set you on the right track. Measuring the distance between the stars, nanometers are less useful than lightyears, but neither unit can (or any conceivable unit for that matter) yield a truly accurate result, because standardization in reality is impossible. To measure the distance between two stars accurately, you would have to measure to the infinith decimal place, because all information exists relative to the Singularity. I thought this was relevant to this thread but I can see how you would consider it off-topic. So I'll respect what you said and post nothing else here, perhaps I'll start another thread on the topic. Thanks for your feedback.

It would be better if you listened a bit more and preached a bit less.

The highlighted statement in you post is just plain wrong.

There are many quantities in Science where the unit is 'counts'.

In that case the unit is exact to any number of decimal place you care to mention.

You do also realise there are many other numbers than are present in the decimal system ?

[Ragingmoron]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

It would be better if you listened a bit more and preached a bit less.

The highlighted statement in you post is just plain wrong.

There are many quantities in Science where the unit is 'counts'.

In that case the unit is exact to any number of decimal place you care to mention.

You do also realise there are many other numbers than are present in the decimal system ?

In order to have a count of something, you have to define it, right? Definitions are also imprecise by their nature. All cause exists relative to infinite effect and vice versa. I can say "I am holding 3 apples" and convey a sentiment of relative meaning in the context of the intellectual social construct of English. However, what I have not conveyed, is anything true in terms of objective reality. Objectively, each apple contains infinite space and time and is the product of infinite space and time. Each apple possesses its own unique properties, some of which I may believe I can discern. Whatever I discern about the apple, however, there are infinite properties that can't be discerned relative to observation. I can measure its mass but I can never know it (1 gram/1000=1 milligram, 1 gram=1000 milligrams. 1 gram/∞=?). To describe the properties of any object is to err, the goal of the scientific method is to err productively.

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

You do also realise there are many other numbers than are present in the decimal system ?

My education is relatively limited, are you referring to imaginary numbers?

PS sorry I come across as preachy I like to think I'm right until demonstrated otherwise, I haven't seen anything to shake my belief in the core sentiment of my argument. 

[Endy0816]

27 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

In order to have a count of something, you have to define it, right? Definitions are also imprecise by their nature. All cause exists relative to infinite effect and vice versa. I can say "I am holding 3 apples" and convey a sentiment of relative meaning in the context of the intellectual social construct of English. However, what I have not conveyed, is anything true in terms of objective reality. Objectively, each apple contains infinite space and time and is the product of infinite space and time. Each apple possesses its own unique properties, some of which I may believe I can discern. Whatever I discern about the apple, however, there are infinite properties that can't be discerned relative to observation. I can measure its mass but I can never know it (1 gram/1000=1 milligram, 1 gram=1000 milligrams. 1 gram/∞=?). To describe the properties of any object is to err, the goal of the scientific method is to err productively.

My education is relatively limited, are you referring to imaginary numbers?

PS sorry I come across as preachy I like to think I'm right until demonstrated otherwise, I haven't seen anything to shake my belief in the core sentiment of my argument. 

The Meter and others in the metric system use a circular definition(via physical constants) to avoid that sort of issue.

 

[Ragingmoron]

5 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

The Meter and others in the metric system use a circular definition(via physical constants) to avoid that sort of issue.

 

How exactly does that work? If I measure my tv, and it is a meter across, there is almost no chance when measured to the nearest billionth of a nanometer that the accuracy of that measurement holds up. Abstract math can deal in absolutes, but that's because it is abstract. I can say "1 meter times 16 is 16 meters" but in reality that doesn't actually mean anything.

[Bufofrog]

2 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

How exactly does that work? If I measure my tv, and it is a meter across, there is almost no chance when measured to the nearest billionth of a nanometer that the accuracy of that measurement holds up. Abstract math can deal in absolutes, but that's because it is abstract. I can say "1 meter times 16 is 16 meters" but in reality that doesn't actually mean anything.

So what is your point?

It can't be this, "The Singularity is at the heart of every unit. That is why I say there is only one Truth", since that makes no sense,

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

A meter, a kilogram, or a second are all units made up by our ancestors that from my perspective we now take for granted.

Yes, and the point is…what? Mass, length and time are separate concepts, and are used differently in physics.

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

Each can be further subdivided (centimeters (1/100), millimeters (1/1000), nanometers (1/ 1 billion) ... 1/∞; gram (1/1) , milligram (1/1000), nanogram (1/1 billion)... 1/∞ or accumulated (meter (1*1), kilometer (1*1000)... 1*∞). No matter what unit you come up with, you can describe anything relevant to the type of unit (space, time, or both) but never accurately.

Accuracy and precision have nothing to do with units.

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

The Singularity is at the heart of every unit. That is why I say there is only one Truth.

This remains irrelevant to the discussion.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

My education is relatively limited, are you referring to imaginary numbers?

 

So why are you trying to tell me 'what I was taught' ?

You have no knowledge of any 'teaching' I may or may not have received or how I received it.

We actually have a couple of self taught members here with impressive knowledge, one has a knowledge and understanding of Physics well up to postgraduate level.
These members also command great respect because of the attitude in being prepared to listen as well as offer their thoughts.
In turn others are interested in their thoughts which are generally well worth listening to.

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

When you measure anything, you are imposing your definition of reality which you were taught and assume to be adequate.

 

The rest of your quote was question about imaginary numbers.

No I was not thinking about imaginary numbers.
You can use the decimal system with imaginary numbers.

But there are numbers called irrational numbers and others called trancendental numbers that cannot be expressed in the decimal system.

However some can be expressed in other systems.

For example the number 1/3 cannot be fully expressed ind ecimal, but can be in a ternary system.

Furthermore the numbers useful for counts can all be expressed in a decimal system. For example the number one hundred and one is exact.

As to you examples about apples, you are trying to preach again instead of finding out.

Isn't find out truth more interesting than holding to being wrong?

How many electrons are there in a helium atom ?

Edited December 16, 2021 by studiot

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

No matter what unit you come up with, you can describe anything relevant to the type of unit (space, time, or both) but never accurately. The Singularity is at the heart of every unit. That is why I say there is only one Truth.

There seems to be contradictions in your reasoning. Per your argument "the Singularity" does not exist, only some approximation of it. 

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

PS sorry I come across as preachy I like to think I'm right until demonstrated otherwise, I haven't seen anything to shake my belief in the core sentiment of my argument. 

This is about the most ineffecient learning method I can think of, especially if you are learning for yourself.

The sheer amount of material to learn is far greater than can be simply looked at in more than one lifetime.

So everyone needs some reduction scheme.

We periodically have those who ask the (sensible) question "If I am learning for myself how to I go about it ?"

And we try our best to help them.

But that would be a topic for another thread if you are interested, please start one.
You might be pleasantly suprised at the response.

[Phi for All]

18 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

My education is relatively limited, are you referring to imaginary numbers?

PS sorry I come across as preachy I like to think I'm right until demonstrated otherwise, I haven't seen anything to shake my belief in the core sentiment of my argument. 

If your education is "relatively" limited, how would you recognize a core-shaking demonstration? You've had many replies to your arguments, and you don't seem to be actively trying to see what they're saying, so it may be that your limited knowledge isn't enough. Sometimes when we fill in the gaps in our knowledge with things we've made up, those things seem to make more sense to us. It can make us think we're right because we don't understand what others are demonstrating, so we think they must be wrong.

30 minutes ago, studiot said:

This is about the most ineffecient learning method I can think of, especially if you are learning for yourself.

The sheer amount of material to learn is far greater than can be simply looked at in more than one lifetime.

So everyone needs some reduction scheme.

I think learning is a lot like breathing. Even if your lungs work great, you need a certain O2 concentration before breathing becomes effective. With learning, I think you need a certain concentration of background knowledge so you can recognize what other knowledge looks like. How many members join to argue against mainstream explanations, get tons of replies showing them where they're wrong, and then declare they've seen nothing to persuade them from the belief in the core sentiment of their arguments?

I suspect it's because they just don't know enough about the basics of the subject to understand the more complex applications of it, like a first-time actor trying out for the part of Hamlet. If you only know a little maths, you're going to apply what you know to every mathematical problem, and you'll find that your limited skill doesn't stretch to fit every calculation. The solution is to learn more, not make up new stuff that only makes sense to you.