Well, enough said, and this is it.

5wize

Well-known member
Wouldn't it make more sense logically if "a priori assumptions" include understanding what "a priori assumptions" are, then wouldn't focusing on what "a priori assumptions" are lead to more understanding?
Won't anybody play with you Tercon?
 

inertia

Member
Wouldn't it make more sense logically if "a priori assumptions" include understanding what "a priori assumptions" are, then wouldn't focusing on what "a priori assumptions" are lead to more understanding?
There was a time when a guy made an assumption about why apples fall straight to the ground rather than in other directions. After much thought, he even decided to write about his musings and published even more of his assumptions in a book called "Principia".

- One a priori assumption was that time is absolute. He assumed that time flows equably without relation to anything external.

- Another a priori assumption was that distance was intuitively understood from a geometrical standpoint.

- Another a priori assumption was that gravity acts instantly.

Yet, there is no a priori reason to expect that the gravitational attraction of two objects varies very nearly precisely as the inverse square of the distance between them. Still, experiments indicate that this is indeed the case.
 
Last edited:

Tercon

Active member
There was a time when a guy made an assumption about why apples fall straight to the ground rather than in other directions. After much thought, he even decided to write about his musings and published even more of his assumptions in a book called "Principia".

- One a priori assumption was that time is absolute. He assumed that time flows equably without relation to anything external.

- Another a priori assumption was that distance was intuitively understood from a geometrical standpoint.

- Another a priori assumption was that gravity acts instantly.

Yet, there is no a priori reason to expect that the gravitational attraction of two objects varies very nearly precisely as the inverse square of the distance between them. Still, experiments indicate that this is indeed the case.
You're strawmanning, because I don't believe nor share in any of your so-called "absolutes" you have listed.

However, I do believe that the truth and reality exist and to suggest otherwise is self-refuting. I believe that the truth and reality are absolutes and a priori assumptions that must be assumed in order to make any logical sense of life.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Actually it's "your gutter", because you're the one who said it. Now go and spread your hate somewhere else.
So let's get this clear... what do you think "play" means in my context, and what does "play" mean in yours? This ought to tell us really what goes on in that whack-a-doodle prurient brain of yours.
 

inertia

Member
You're strawmanning, because I don't believe nor share in any of your so-called "absolutes" you have listed.
However, I do believe that the truth and reality exist and to suggest otherwise is self-refuting. I believe that the truth and reality are absolutes and a priori assumptions that must be assumed in order to make any logical sense of life.
Even with flawed assumptions, the truth remains. For particles in the low-velocity regime, and within low gravitational fields, even relativity still predicts gravity's characteristic inverse-square law between two point objects.
 

Tercon

Active member
So let's get this clear... what do you think "play" means in my context, and what does "play" mean in yours? This ought to tell us really what goes on in that whack-a-doodle prurient brain of yours.

Actually buddy I don't know what you mean, because based on YOUR snide arrogant responses to my posts we obviously don't share the same spirit, so I take YOUR snide arrogant responses as Freudian slips when faced with the truth that always seems to offend you.
 

Tercon

Active member
Even with flawed assumptions, the truth remains. For particles in the low-velocity regime, and within low gravitational fields, even relativity still predicts gravity's characteristic inverse-square law between two point objects.
But assuming that the truth and reality exists remains a priori assumption right? Also, let us not pretend that "particles in the low-velocity regime" "and low gravitational fields" are knowable like the truth, belief, logic, morality and consciousness are knowable to us.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Actually buddy I don't know what you mean, because based on YOUR snide arrogant responses to my posts we obviously don't share the same spirit, so I take YOUR snide arrogant responses as Freudian slips when faced with the truth that always seems to offend you.
Awwww. Does Tercon not appreciate the result of ending most of his garbage thinking by his inbred arrogance of calling US silly?

You take them as Freudian because that's were you take them.... again, don't project and put some pants on.
 
Last edited:

Tercon

Active member
Awwww. Does Tercon not appreciate the result of ending most of his garbage thinking by his inbred arrogance of calling US silly?

You take them as Freudian because that's were you take them.... again, don't project and put some pants on.
Like I said, take your hate somewhere else silly.
 

inertia

Member
But assuming that the truth and reality exists remains a priori assumption right? Also, let us not pretend that "particles in the low-velocity regime" "and low gravitational fields" are knowable like the truth, belief, logic, morality and consciousness are knowable to us.
Within the confines of physics, the logic is expressed with mathematics, a clearly knowable endeavor, and what distinguishes physics from many other less-interesting human activities is the ability to test mathematical models ( the logic ) by measuring predictions. It is the cold and hard repeatable measurement that arbitrates physical understanding in this field. Fundamentally, measurement provides very useful knowledge beyond pure and applied physics. It provides knowledge about the actionable tangible reality about the truth of a component of a mechanical system, an electrical system, or even the characteristics of a virus in our current pandemic for example.

As stated in my replies above, F = G(Mm / r^2) is true for particles in the low-velocity regime, and within low gravitational fields. It's true even when the initial a priori assumptions of Isaac Newton were - incorrect. We know this is true through very precise measurements even at a distance of 45 micrometers.
 
Last edited:

Tercon

Active member
Within the confines of physics, the logic is expressed with mathematics, a clearly knowable endeavor, and what distinguishes physics from many other less-interesting human activities is the ability to test mathematical models ( the logic ) by measuring predictions.

Sorry about the delay in answering. Human life isn't based on JUST “physics”. But it is based on the capacity to believe the truth and think logically. And it is ONLY a believing mind that is able to “test mathematical models ( the logic ) by measuring predictions”, as there is nothing that exists outside of a mind that is capable of measurement, observation and belief. So I would tend to lean more on the side of our psychological endeavours rather than physics.
It is the cold and hard repeatable measurement that arbitrates physical understanding in this field.

Actually I would disagree, in reality it is a psychological endeavour to conduct “repeatable measurement that arbitrates” “understanding in” any field including “physics”.
Fundamentally, measurement provides very useful knowledge beyond pure and applied physics. It provides knowledge about the actionable tangible reality about the truth of a component of a mechanical system, an electrical system, or even the characteristics of a virus in our current pandemic for example.

Actually it is the “very useful knowledge” that's important. And that “very useful knowledge”comes from observation and measurement, of which both are the domain of a believing mind and not our physical senses.
As stated in my replies above, F = G(Mm / r^2) is true for particles in the low-velocity regime, and within low gravitational fields. It's true even when the initial a priori assumptions of Isaac Newton were - incorrect. We know this is true through very precise measurements even at a distance of 45 micrometers.

Strawman, as I do not share the “assumptions of Isaac Newton”. Also, would you consider knowing that “Isaac Newton” was “incorrect” “very useful knowledge”? If so, then why use his error as an assumption now?
 

inertia

Member
Actually I would disagree, in reality it is a psychological endeavour to conduct “repeatable measurement that arbitrates” “understanding in” any field including “physics”.

I thought you would disagree. There are different ways of thinking about reality.

Certainly, there exists is the reality of our psychological experience.

Yet, there is also the reality of mathematical facts; for example, there is no largest prime number.

- This fact is independent of ourselves. It has always been true. It didn't simply become true because someone thought of it.

Concerning belief, I have reason to believe that God fixed physical and mathematical laws. I also have reason to believe that He did this completely unconstrained by mankind's psychological perspective.

Jeremiah 33:25 (NET) " But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth. "

Astrophysics not Psychology
 
Last edited:

Tercon

Active member
I thought you would disagree. There are different ways of thinking about reality.

Actually friend there is ONLY one way to think about reality, and that's ONLY in and with a believing mind, because outside or without a believing mind the truth and reality is unknowable.

Certainly, there exists is the reality of our psychological experience.

Actually the ONLY way that the truth, logic, morals, consciousness, existence and reality itself can be known and experienced is in and with a psychological experience (belief).

Yet, there is also the reality of mathematical facts; for example, there is no largest prime number. - This fact is independent of ourselves. It has always been true. It didn't simply become true because someone thought of it.

Actually the ONLY way that “the reality of mathematical facts” can be known and experienced is in and with a psychological experience (a believing mind) as well. You can also add eternity to that list as well. And reality like consciousness can only be experienced in the present tense that a believing mind can provide.

Concerning belief, I have reason to believe that God fixed physical and mathematical laws.

If “physical and mathematical laws” are fixed and YOU believe and reasoned that they are “fixed”, then what “fixed” “physical and mathematical laws”?

I also have reason to believe that He did this completely unconstrained by mankind's psychological perspective.

Hmmm, actually I have reason to believe that we have something to do with physicality and its expansion.

Jeremiah 33:25 (NET) " But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth. " Astrophysics not Psychology

Yup, but He didn't say we didn't have anything to do with it. And also note, if God exists, then He must have a believing mind as well, because outside of a believing mind abstract ideas like the truth, logic, morals, consciousness, existence, numbers, languages, reality and belief itself are unknowable and have no way or place in order to exist.

And that friend is more in the Philosophy and Psychology field than Physics.

The exact sciences also start from the assumption that in the end it will always be possible to understand nature, in every new field of experience, but that we may make no a priori assumptions about the meaning of the word "understand". Heisenberg - (Introduction to quantum theory - Park, 2nd ed. )

How about assuming that the thing that we are assuming with and considering and understanding these “new” fields in and with is primary and a priori in nature?
 
Last edited:
Top