Jump to content

naitche

Senior Members
  • Posts

    403
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by naitche

  1. If light is not of sufficient strength, the plants will stretch towards the source causing weaker stem growth and greater spacing between leaf nodes, and affect  synthesis resulting in some blanching. I suspect but say can't say definitively that longer 'days' won't alter that.

    Stronger light generally results in shorter, more dense and vibrant growth.

  2. 2 hours ago, TheVat said:

    Merleau-Ponty construed existence as understood through the body.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Merleau-Ponty

    Merleau-Ponty understands perception to be an ongoing dialogue between one's lived body and the world which it perceives, in which perceivers passively and actively strive to express the perceived world in concert with others. He was the only major phenomenologist of the first half of the twentieth century to engage extensively with the sciences. It is through this engagement that his writings became influential in the project of naturalizing phenomenology, in which phenomenologists use the results of psychology and cognitive science.

    Merleau-Ponty emphasized the body as the primary site of knowing the world, a corrective to the long philosophical tradition of placing consciousness as the source of knowledge, and maintained that the perceiving body and its perceived world could not be disentangled from each other. The articulation of the primacy of embodiment (corporéité) led him away from phenomenology towards what he was to call "indirect ontology" or the ontology of "the flesh of the world" 

    Yes, Where the body one is provided is  part of the environment to which we respond to.

  3. 10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    No to the idea that there's objective truth (whatever definition) to be told or taught, for life to make sense we have to self contextualise, then our story can flow.

    There is no correct perspective, not even your's.

     

    I agree. But  the question brought in the  O.P. was better crafted to avoid that kind of circularity.

    The meaning of life is subjective, but thats not the question posed.

    The question posed, and any answer arrived at, is more consequential than that.

  4. 13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    TBH I thought it was you that brought up the number's related objective, but OK let's bin that;

    Values are not always numerical .

    13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

     

    what's left is objective purpose (unless you have your own definition), which, when we drill down to the fundamentals, is to continue living;

    Forget living too, for the purpose of existence. To 'Be', is more fitting. Life is only one form of existence  recognized.

    13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    but that's not a universal given for all people or creature's, some of them get the urge to shag themselves to death, they wake up one day and their purpose has changed they now fundamentally, want to die and some people chose now to end their life.

    Exactly. To be alive is not the totality of being. Its only one value given to the totality of existence,  so not definitive of being. Its one value, and our existence evidences that, but is not = to the definitive total.

    13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Like I said, "whatever way I parse this, the answer is no." 

    No to what?! existence?

    If you consider yours meaningless, that doesn't dictate that we should assume your perspective is correct.

    That there is no Objective we might potentially be able to contribute towards, by our existence. The existential structures of existence  that our own might potentially contribute towards.

    What I have been trying to say is that the physical properties that allow mathematics to work for us, are those that allow existence.

    Form follows function.  Form does not direct it. Function does that.

    An existential  totality is not supported by its being, but by the value action or Objective to its being. 

    The value(s) must be given 1st, and are always = to the objective.

    The objective is Not equal to any value other than its actual definition.  More than one totality is not supportable in a single definition.

    Dogs are not Pedigrees. To assume that is true is not reality, but based on faith in a pedigree Objective that does not recognize the totality, or environment, of dogs as equal to their Objective being.

    That action or Objective applied to Dogs serves to subtract dogs to a Pedigree state that can not support the totality of 'Dogs' environment. An action that gains momentum as the environment is subtracted to one that supports a Pedigree over a dog. Responsibility to dogs and the environment that supports them  is lost, as ability of of response is restricted to a pedigree presentation of state. 

    Dogs loose value to their environment, as its  demands are not met. Values of healthy longevity and abilities of response to the demands of diverse environments in prioritization of a pedigree, are lost to the total value of Dogs.

    Their Breeders deem the environment faulty for the failures of demonstrable value to it, and so gain support to restrict the environments available to dogs. Further decreasing abilities of response and diversity to the Objective.

    2 hours ago, iNow said:

    It doesn’t matter. We do. 

    And it is relevant that some are selected against,  to the Objective totality expressed. 

  5. On 3/12/2024 at 2:06 AM, dimreepr said:

     

    What is it I'm projecting? 

    This below.

    On 3/10/2024 at 10:56 PM, dimreepr said:

    you're confusing the word, and yourself, in the context of the question asked.

     

    On 3/12/2024 at 11:21 PM, dimreepr said:

    We're either talking past each other or you're being obtuse. I seek no objective in life, I'm happy to just sit here and think about thing's, what number would you give that?

    You are too caught up in numbers. I have said many times there is no value in The Objective. No number value. Neutral.  Its a subjectively applied totality. Its structure depends on subjective applications to its being.- it has none of its own. None as a totality. Its only representative, the presentation of the values supplied it in total.

    What number do you want to represent 42?  Its the totality of 42 value units given its definition. Thats all. Its definition means nothing without 42 units of value to attribute it.

    The  contribution of each unit is equal to the Objective. It won't achieve its objective definition of 42 if you only deem 38 of its units equal to the objective required  as 42 is defined.

    Kind of like Humanity. When  parts of the Human constituency are deemed unequal to that manifestation,  unrepresentative of the whole, you  subtract from its definition.

    Were you to attribute other values to the  Human totality than than are Objectively defined, then some  deem themselves more equal to the Human definition, and do the same.

    As with the Kennel clubs in their constitutional  definition- A breeder is not valid as such, unless a member of a recognized Pedigree organization, breeding only within that systems rules and regulations. Nor is a Beagle recognized as a Beagle, with out a pedigree to verify it as such. anything less is discredited from their definition of a breeder, or the dogs they represent. The total space of a breeder is divided,  equal only in opposition. Diminishing value to both in mutual disregard. The total space of a Dog breeder is mutually discredited because neither part can live up to the expectations created for responsible Dog breeding in their Human environment.

    Humanity isn't defined by its number but by its objective totality. What is unequal to its definition.

    Dogs are not defined by a pedigree, but by their Objective totality. What is unequal to their definition.

    The Objective is a subtraction, to a totality of state. More than one definition can not maintain totality.

    On 3/12/2024 at 11:21 PM, dimreepr said:

    Either I'm to stupid to understand or you haven't explained it well enough, it's bad form to refuse a request for clarification.

    See above, 

    On 3/12/2024 at 11:21 PM, dimreepr said:

    Ok, please show me the mathematics of how you would model the reality of fun?

    I don't claim to model celery, or fun. Only that their subjective constituent properties/actions direct any structure  given to  existence. That  subjective values must be 1st provided, to achieve objective totality to  existence.

    That form follows function, in that direction given subjectively, informs or instructs the totality of an  objective state . As in any formulae.

    That its the expression of subjective values that lead or direct an objective totality or state of  existence.

     

     

    On 3/12/2024 at 11:21 PM, dimreepr said:

     

    You do know that we haven't got a TOE, nor the prospect of getting one, don't you?

    I can't assume your objection to its existence applies. 

    On 3/12/2024 at 11:21 PM, dimreepr said:

    Irony, I suspect, is just as difficult to pin down for a mathematician. 😉

     

  6. I doubt there is much help for this unusual problem, I suspect I will have to wait, as earlier.

    This is the 2nd time I've encountered it. I am unable to contribute to the topic on 'the Nature of existence' in philosophy forum. I can navigate or contribute else where, but once into that topic trying to post a reply, the curser will not register. This  does not appear to be an issue in any other topic. Strange. 

  7. 21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    And you're not making any sense...

     

    21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    It has to me...

    Naturally. Your whole being is designed to serve That Objective Human existence identified here as Dimreepr. No  purpose to existence is there, if we have no Objectives to serve.  No  structure in that.

    All that contributes to your Objective totality is equal to it. Thats the nature of its being. There is no totality otherwise, to support. 

    Those 'environmental' values  though, can't ever equal the totality on their own.

    The Objective plays an equal role to subjective values, in their applications.

    21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    What is it I'm projecting? 

    Read the sentence you quoted before you single it out for reply.

    21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Whichever way I parse this, the answer is no...

    Then you should be able to show me why not. I would actually be quite happy for some one to do that.

    This is not fun.

  8. From what I understand  attrition should/would be expected as part of the processes of growth, nourishment and diversity but allowing for changing conditions as the forests evolve. ie lower growth choked out under canopy, but allowed to regrow where canopies are damaged, to shelter regrowth beneath. Not meant to represent a finished production, but to  speed up a more natural evolution in maximization of supportive environmental conditions.

    Emissions mitigation is a benefit thats not inconsequential, but only one benefit, to mitigate, not solve a carbon emissions problem. Other benefits such as better soil hydrology, can also assist in mitigating climate extremes, desertification and other of effects of carbon emissions.  It should not be seen as simply a sequestration solution.  Grasslands can often succeed forests, where soils were previously unsuited with poor hydrology. An open forest mixture can be the most productive and diverse, indicative of a healthy system.

    This is just one example of methodology to speed a procession to that end.

  9. 13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    That doesn't mean its objectively measurable by anyone else.

    You are not listening. The Objective totality of your measure has no value. Its value neutral,  As a totality.

    Any value it has is subjective of the properties brought to it.

    An electron is simple. It has one action, value or property relative to its totality, at least that we recognize to date. With out that, there is no electron. That value action directs its being. Its supported by its single purpose. That is The Objective, in  totality.

    The electron is the value measure of a single property, relative to its 'being'. Its being is valueless with out that property. So there is no number for you or for ethics objectively. Not in totality. The totality is representative only, of its property. It is the measure of its property.

    You are asking for the measure of a measure. Property.

    Your being is Objectively measurable by the properties  that contribute to, or direct its being.

    Weight, height, color sex etc.  It has no value independent of those brought to its contextualization.

     

    13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Like I said you're confusing the word, and yourself, in the context of the question asked.

    No, you are projecting.. The nature of existence is the same as the nature of mathematics. One is a model of the other. Value must be provided or given to the objective, else there is no contextual property to support or direct a representative totality or sum.

    Form follows and is dependent on function to exist.

    Function is always relative to the Objective served by its being. Its action value.

    Evidence.

  10. 10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Well, you could have put that a lot more concisely, 🙄 but what I took from it was, you're confused about what objective means in this context.

    For instance, there is no objective measure of my subjective experience, which brings us full circle, bc that is the nature of our existence. 😉 

    Then what are 'you', if not the measure of your subjective experience? ie: all that has occurred beyond and within your consciousness, to produce or build the structural manifestation of you? 

    Your experience is subjective, its collective manifestation is The Objective attained.

     

  11. Thank you.

    It is both Objective and Subjective as a duality. 

    Celery is the Objective you have subtracted from existence in reference.

    Its not cucumber. Its definition is independent of other plants or existences otherwise defined. 

    Its not sunlight. Its not soil. Those are relative, and it is subject to the existence of those things. They are not included in its definition though. They are objectively exclusive.

    Celery can be relative to cucumber, if the referenced Objective is to lets say, vegetables. Then  both are subject to that objective definition. Their values contribute to that definition as  property.

     

    Your relationship with celery is subjective.

    Its being edible is subjective.

    Its not defined by its edibility, but by its genus. There will be examples of celery that don't conform to the edible Objective. Its a separate definition. The fact a piece of celery being inedible does not alter its definition.

    To say otherwise is contrary to its definition.

    It would require  reduction to the objective definition of celery.

    It could never then be clearly defined because you have introduced subjectivity, a relationship to edibility, into its definition.

    You are an Objective existence, independent of your relationship with the rest of existence by 'your' definition.

    There  you are!

    At the same time, there would be nothing of 'you' with out the rest of 'existence', as Objectively defined. Your objective being is subject to such a thing as  'being'. Your being  is a value  to existence. Your being adds to its properties

    Its a matter of the the alluded perspective. 

    Subtracted to the definition of property, or in relation to property.

     

  12. Nice to see such a controlled study utilizing whats understood of soil health and biodiversity used in permaculture methodology (permanently sustainable agriculture mimicking natural systems).

    Soil cover is essential for soil health. Disturbing soils is not always avoidable, though it does interfere with natural processes, the  roles of  fungi and bacteria  in the decomposition of organic matter into usable components. Disturbing soils always involves a degree of sterilization.

    My take is that Miyawaki method improves the soils nutrient content and arability but sterilizes the soil to a degree at the same time, interfering with the biodynamics. The plantings themselves then provide cover needed to rebuild those dynamics.

    The Kinvara adaptation to the Miyawaki method covers the soil 1st, with the raw materials to 'feed' the natural processes, then plants with as little disturbance as needed to those processes set in motion. The plantings cover a second time before soils surfaces are again exposed  to U.V. irradiation . 

  13. On 3/7/2024 at 1:40 AM, dimreepr said:

     it doesn't work for everyone... 😇

    You made a statement. Where is the value to support it? 

    Where does 'it' not work?

    Or maybe forget it, if faith in your own assumptions cause you to manifest a troll instead of a scientist.

    I will ignore further contributions from you. Theres been no value to the Objective in them so far.

     I word this to illustrate points made previously. Seems you can't even try to comprehend, even your own contributions.

  14. On 9/2/2023 at 12:29 AM, studiot said:

    Thank you for this reply and the other posts you have recently made.

    I hope I am now clear on your input and can now discuss it further.

    🙂  +1

     

    I'll come back to 'value' in the context of your introduction of 'objective v subjective' in a moment.

     

    But first your use of relativity and relationship, although these words stem from the same root, they have different meanings and usage.

    The root remains the same, the different words used direct context, rather than alter the root.

    On 9/2/2023 at 12:29 AM, studiot said:

    Even though you are not a mathematician, you should be easily able to understand the very basic concept of 'relationship' in mathematics and logic.

    Like so many basic concepts in so many subjects 'relationship' manifests itself as having many shades of meaning. The are many types of relationship recognised. In fact it is a broad category and we distingusih further by either introducing special new words (as in function) or additional adjectives as in equivalence relation.

    You might find it useful to look at your own language wiki to find out about a particularly useful one in maths called an equivalence relation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation

     

    Here you can see that in this type of relation you can sometimes substitute one 'value' for another  - there is no subjectivity allowed according to the rules.

    What ever value used, it is subjective of the purpose/objective it serves. It contributes value, in relation to that. Seems to me our understanding of the Objective and its subjective are at fault.

    On 9/2/2023 at 12:29 AM, studiot said:

    So subjective v objective. I hear what you say about this but Nature (Physics, maths, everything) is remarkably obstinate in resisting Man's efforts to squeeze it into his own subjective categorisations.

    And so it is with subjective v objective. This is not an either or (binary) choice, but rather a scale of meaning.

    .

     

    I see the Objective as being negative for value. An existence, subtracted from  relationship in its definition.  Reduced to a singular definition, or statehood. A subtraction of existence to a marginalized/defined state of being, apart from all 'other' values or relation to existence. 

    Its constituent property, likewise subtracted from all other value is its subjective. Any value to the Objective is given, by its constituent property. That serves and directs the defined Objective by its inherent relationship. In context. Those constituent values must be given, or assumed, for realization. 

    What is realized is dependent on the constitutional values expressed by 

    5 is  5 of nothing, without the units to its measure. A rock is not a rock, without the minerals that contribute to its definition. They direct the definition through their values/properties  of hardness, cohesion, mass etc.

    They in-form the state. What is realized is dependent on the constituent values expressed in The Objective properties.

    There is no scale of meaning. The scale is of Objective and subjective.

    Yes, you can put value into the Objective. Where it serves a further Objective, and becomes subject to that one. Such as building road works for humanity. Objective is to statehood, or structure.

    The value is not actually  in the roads built, but in how those roads serve the Human objective.

    I don't see a scale of meaning. Value is always subjective, the Objective neutral or negative for value.

    If not in subjective service to Humanity, the building of roads has negative value. If we were to say our value lies in the objective of building roads,  it would be inhuman to do otherwise. A double negative when the value is put into the Objective. No recognition of environment/reality. 

    We see this demonstrated in the formation of the Kennel clubs over 150 years ago. They formed with the  Objective of improving dogs and their breeding through the use of Pedigrees. A tool to maximize successful dogs through recording what is being built on.

    Their mistake was in putting all the value into the Pedigree, and not the dogs their Objective represented or served. The statement that Dogs bred outside of their own rules and regulations are not recognized has been widely understood as conditional to their constituency. 

    Form follows function is a prominent tenet of Dog breeders and breeders of other animals. Yet the system formed by the Kennel clubs 150 or more years ago, supposedly to maximize the success of Domestic Dogs in their given environments, places the value in state, or form,  above any function served. The double negative. There is no recognition of environment or subjectivity in that equation. As an objective body, they serve no purpose beyond preserving 'states' of dogs. An entropic biological system where nothing not already there, can contribute, and what does not contribute or fails to, is subtracted.

    The environment, or existence of Dog Breeders is not recognized by this system whos constituency openly and actively  discredit their environment, (or the foundations of Dog breeding) through  a 'faith'  value in the Pedigree Objective. Dogs bred for subjective value to the environments or people they serve are not recognized with out a Pedigree to verify the validity of their state. Quite literally. Domestic Dogs natural environment is Humanity. Back yard breeders is a term used to discredit and remove environmental  value/favor for those breeding dogs  outside of the pedigree system, or deny validity of members within it.

    "Standards' of the pedigree system are upheld at the expense of the environment/existence they were to serve.

     

    The double negative sets up oppositional processes to the objective. It objects, to  values negative to its own state as being where any value must lie.

    This appears to be reflected in other areas where double negatives, or value to the objective applies.

    It is reductive of the Objective existence. Removing property.

    Subjectivity, diversity and response ability.

    The objective is to State, Subjective to direction.

    Direction (or value)to the state is an entropic state, as in genetic selection.

    The Objective 'Objects' to anything less than its  definition.

    Value imposes  relationships contrary or oppositional The Objective.

     

     

  15. On 2/12/2024 at 1:09 AM, dimreepr said:

    Nope, I'm just asking if you know what the number is???

    It has no number objectively.

    Subjectively or in relation to yourself, you decide. 

    Any 'number' you come up with though, isn't going to provide any 'real' value to you  with out being part of/contributing to a larger equation.  It would only be representative of The Objective state. 

    To decide its subjective value to Humanity, you would need to involve Humanities complete content/context to determine  the sum of its value contribution.. It has no value with out context/relationship. Your number just provides a definition.

  16. On 2/12/2024 at 12:30 AM, MSC said:

    You're right and I'm so sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. Defining value in this context is definitely key, as is defining context. Context comes from the latin contexare meaning that which is weaved together. Value as a word is actually much harder to define and as Studiot has said, words have many meanings and those meanings have different shades, spins and flavours of meaning. 

    Value is inexorably linked to the idea of worth. The goal of context relativism is to define the value/worth of things and groups of things, in the abstract and concrete on the assumption that everything has value to us in our pursuit of understanding the nature of our existence. I don't know or believe a rock thinks, but I need to understand the nature of the rock and the time and space around it, my own physiology and how I can move in the space and time around me, in case it gets hurled at my head or I need to use it to build a house or a tool. In the abstract sense, I also need to be mindful of the utility of a word or concept, as a tool. Value is one such word as even though mathematics and Ethics are studies in value theory, the shades of meaning and definitions is approached differently. The commonality is still what is useful for our survival? Why survival? Strip away all other human motivations and the primary one is we instinctively understand that we need time, to understand and consider our existence and what we want from it. In order for us to have that time, we want to survive. 

    Now every subject of discourse you can think of, in every knowledge category, has a truth value between 1 and 0. The truth value I calculate is thought of as the amount of objective statements you can make about a given subject. As examples, the theory of general relativity has a truth value closer to 1, while flat earth theory has a truth value closer to zero. I can make a pretty big list of objective statements about all the things general relativity explains. I can't make a list like that for flat earth theory. The only list of objectively true statements I can make about flat earth theory, is something like X believes in Y (Y being flat earth theory) even though Y is demonstrably false. I can make another list for general relativity with the modification "X Believes in Z (GR) because it explains a lot/has a high truth value". 

    Categorising and delineating different contexts, the point of context relativism, gives us more things to quantify, the more we can quantify, the more we can formulate new experiments to reach a better understanding of the nature of our existence as living beings, earthlings, mammals, humans. 

    Context realtivism to me isn't even a prescriptive suggestion but a psychological observational theory of explanation of how we think, because as individuals we can only understand the lesser context of our own existence, but when we come together we can weave together the greater context, closer to the full context. We all have knowledge of the context of our own existence. The idea of "personal truth/knowledge" in epistemology only equates to statements of belief about individuals and groups. 

     

     

    No worries. I've been away too long myself. 1st from p.c troubles, then other causes. I will get back to this topic asap, currently recovering from surgery to both wrists a day ago, makes this typing too difficult yet...

  17. 12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Please correct me if I'm wrong but your theory/hypothesis is, the nature of our existence is subjective...

    A rock exists, it just doesn't think about it... 😉

    The rock exists, Objectively, by its definition.

    The nature of that rocks existence is subjective, to its 'experience'. The 'values'  or otherwise defined objective existences that contribute to its make up and the actions upon it.

    Without which its definition is not achieved. Its a duality.

    Existence is an Object reality. Its nature is subject to what is brought to it, or assumed, into its expression.

  18. On 9/2/2023 at 12:29 AM, studiot said:

    Thank you for this reply and the other posts you have recently made.

    I hope I am now clear on your input and can now discuss it further.

    🙂  +1

     

    I'll come back to 'value' in the context of your introduction of 'objective v subjective' in a moment.

     

    But first your use of relativity and relationship, although these words stem from the same root, they have different meanings and usage.

    Even though you are not a mathematician, you should be easily able to understand the very basic concept of 'relationship' in mathematics and logic.

    Like so many basic concepts in so many subjects 'relationship' manifests itself as having many shades of meaning. The are many types of relationship recognised. In fact it is a broad category and we distingusih further by either introducing special new words (as in function) or additional adjectives as in equivalence relation.

    You might find it useful to look at your own language wiki to find out about a particularly useful one in maths called an equivalence relation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation

     

    Here you can see that in this type of relation you can sometimes substitute one 'value' for another  - there is no subjectivity allowed according to the rules.

     

    So subjective v objective. I hear what you say about this but Nature (Physics, maths, everything) is remarkably obstinate in resisting Man's efforts to squeeze it into his own subjective categorisations.

    And so it is with subjective v objective. This is not an either or (binary) choice, but rather a scale of meaning.

    Science, in particular, tries to remain objective by various means. We like to think that if se set up a machine to observe and/or record it is objective because it can only record what it observes.
    But I know that Nature can play tricks on us, from my own personal experience during my time as a surveyor.

    When making important verticular angular measurements it is good practice to observe from both ends of the observation line.
    One end will generally be below the other so looking up (+ve angle) and the other end looking down (-ve) angle.
    But I have seen situations where it is possible for both angles to be +ve. That is both ends of the line appear to be looking down on the other.

    The angular measurement instrument (theodolite) is correct (objective) and it is not operator error.

    So Science is able to correct its faulty theory.

    No, this information  does not  conflict with my theory. Only the objective is fixed, by definition.

    As for the language, again, the language assumes greater depth of meaning and clarity. The subjective is always relative. 

    This came to me through study of Constitution and social science, the effects of constitution on the cultures informed by them, and how they might be altered.  I will come back  and attempt to explain through the example I studied. Trouble with internet connection atm.

  19. 14 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    What makes you think that that, makes sense?

    No shit Sherlock:

    When you can point me to some one who has been able to elucidate what I am seeing, better, I won't feel the need to keep trying to do it myself.

    In the meantime, Theres nothing constructive to a science forum in discrediting the attempts made on no other grounds than you  don't understand.

    My purpose here is to try to understand this well enough that I can explain it.

    I have no doubts there is some thing to be explained. 

    14 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Our existance is natural, ergo the nature of our existence is a closed loop; unless we think ourselves out of the argument... 🤔🤒😣

    Oh thanks, thats cleared every thing up.

    11 hours ago, studiot said:

    Thank you for this reply and the other posts you have recently made.

    I hope I am now clear on your input and can now discuss it further.

    🙂  +1

     

    I'll come back to 'value' in the context of your introduction of 'objective v subjective' in a moment.

     

    But first your use of relativity and relationship, although these words stem from the same root, they have different meanings and usage.

    Even though you are not a mathematician, you should be easily able to understand the very basic concept of 'relationship' in mathematics and logic.

    Like so many basic concepts in so many subjects 'relationship' manifests itself as having many shades of meaning. The are many types of relationship recognised. In fact it is a broad category and we distingusih further by either introducing special new words (as in function) or additional adjectives as in equivalence relation.

    You might find it useful to look at your own language wiki to find out about a particularly useful one in maths called an equivalence relation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation

     

    Here you can see that in this type of relation you can sometimes substitute one 'value' for another  - there is no subjectivity allowed according to the rules.

     

    So subjective v objective. I hear what you say about this but Nature (Physics, maths, everything) is remarkably obstinate in resisting Man's efforts to squeeze it into his own subjective categorisations.

    And so it is with subjective v objective. This is not an either or (binary) choice, but rather a scale of meaning.

    Science, in particular, tries to remain objective by various means. We like to think that if se set up a machine to observe and/or record it is objective because it can only record what it observes.
    But I know that Nature can play tricks on us, from my own personal experience during my time as a surveyor.

    When making important verticular angular measurements it is good practice to observe from both ends of the observation line.
    One end will generally be below the other so looking up (+ve angle) and the other end looking down (-ve) angle.
    But I have seen situations where it is possible for both angles to be +ve. That is both ends of the line appear to be looking down on the other.

    The angular measurement instrument (theodolite) is correct (objective) and it is not operator error.

    So Science is able to correct its faulty theory.

    Thankyou. I will consider these and see how/if they fit into this or contribute.

    I appreciate your constructive input.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.