Luc Turpin

Doing very well! Its the exact interpretation that I have of linear. The cat associated moving to danger; not moving to safety! There is also the open (as in open area) and closed context Cat's hide in brush, run in open areas. But its more complicated than that, because of an interplay of those and other variables

Something very basic that i do not grasp, must think

Pictures help need to think why i always return to a cause and effect kind of world do not want to overstay my stay

Thinking more thoroughly, my contention is a foolish one!

I have to wrap my head around the idea about it becoming a tool, not about viscosity, for which i just picked out of the blue for argument sake my contention here is that the act of measurement or observing changes something in the world, or is this again too far fetched. note again, you can disengage at anytime from this discussion Changes and then says something about the world

It clarifies it, but need to think I have to wrap my head around this one, can you expand? But, let’s say for argument purposes, there is only one factor, than the answer becomes yes? Can you expand on this one also?

It implies something of the water, but not linearity or non-linearity! Right? But it does say that slender bodies go through water more easily than wide bodies. And from this, we can Attribute properties to water, like maybe viscosity. Coming back full circle, can we say that the type of tool used is saying something about the world? Or for a commoner like me, not yet Knowing that non-l/l is a part of the tool, say something like Non-l/l shows that water in world has a certain degree of viscosity hope that I am not frustrating anyone.

Now I get it, yes what effects; I was a step back, wanting to know if there was an effect; what, then answers my previous question that there are

I do not understand the meaning Please substantiate! I am grasping at straws to understand, but straws will be replaced by something more solid as I progress. I understand that non-linearity/linearity are part of the tools, but what does it say that they are required to deal with the world? Are they required to deal with the world or are they just there, static being part of the tools. The former implies implications for the world, right? I have a formidable advantage over all of you; I don’t understand as much as all of you

Very interesting, I need to think about it. Like how your are leading the discussion With effects on the world? With effects on the comprehension of the world? Like leading a camel (me) to water

Upon reading it a second time and thinking about it, i would now say a greater yes than before

Yes

I have comments-questions on your last post before this, but that will wait. Yes, meant interaction, not deliberately trying to communicate. Boundary between us and the universe is there, but there might be "bleeding" between the two. I might post something in neuroscience on mind. Far from being proven though. Linearity-non-linearity was reiterated in this post as a response to my debate with genady. And, I would like a deeper dive on this. As much conditioned by human nature of mind as of nature of external world – yes, an interplay of both Limited by sense – yes. Brain as a computer – it is an older model of the brain The act of measuring (apologies to Joigus; their words; not mine) disturbs the system….. – can you substantiate? And the change from CM to QM was brought about by science prodding the universe and getting results that were inconsistent with CM; which comes back to science being the tool, not the subject matter as indicated in one of my previous posts

First line: interesting, need to think about it; Kuhn I like very much Second line: I am a hopeless case in math, but will try

On science and the world, physics and non-linearity! I did a lot of thinking yesterday with little to show except for this: that science telling us what the world is all about as some people think, feels awkward. Should it not be that the world (universe) ought to be telling us through science what it wants to reveal to us? Science is the tool, not the subject matter!. In physics, at least for someone looking outside-in like me, it seems that there is a high rate of theorizing and calculating in comparison to experimenting. This theorizing-experimenting ratio appears to be much different in physics than in other sciences. I am aware that its the nature of the beast. Physics requires it. But what impacts this has on physics, I don’t know! Also, I cannot use math to corroborate things as I am too weak in it. And I found out that I cannot use key words to convey thoughts because the physics sense varies greatly from the conventional one. So, I am stuck in a pickle. What I can claim though with some degree of certainty is that probing the universe with science has put into light some of the non-linear features of complex systems. Seeing us no longer seeing ourselves. I will read this post very carefully! Thanks!

And i use world as the one that surround.use, still need to think before answering

What is your definition of world?

Is it not what i am trying to say that absolute certainty does not exist

Noted Noted, need to think before answering

And outcome not predictable with absolutely certainty?

Is everything in the world not dependent on initial conditions?

But, does the implications of linearity not manifest themselves on the world? Imprecise measurement -imprecise world; we are not living in a clockwork world, even trains get delayed by the unexpected

Helpful! Thank you for not leaving me behind in the discussion. The opposite. world is non-linear and models linear. Both should be non-linear. However, with the discussion that I followed, it appears that non-linear models are readily in use. My understanding is that weather models are non-linear and that the decision to go skiing or not depends on the precision of the forecast. Today, I might go skiing because one day forecast are relatively good, while deciding to go skiing next week with forecast in hand, is frought with more imprecision. The forecast says nice weather, but it can change. Out in the world, everyone knows that forecasts have imprecision baked into them and that the more we advance in time, the more the imprecision grows. This is the nature of weather in the world not predictable with absolute certainty. I may be attributing here a concept of certainty to non-linearity that may be incorrect. Still fumbling with words and their meanings.

A simplistic way on my part of seing it; we use non-linear equations to obtain the weather and determine whether or not we go skiing

Vey well said