Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
What we say (or write) passes through the filter of our background, learning and understanding, giving rise to our interpretation. The person who hears what we say, passes it through a similar filter; thus, producing an interpretation that may well be very different from ours. The surprising thing is that we ever fully understand one another. Or do we? Does anyone really hear what we say?You have identified the essence of comedy and lightweight drama: set up a scene that elicits the audience's expectations of "normal", then flip to the plausible but unexpected. It is also the essence of a lot of science: the anomalous observation that leads to understanding, is only anomalous in preconception, not nature.
What I was looking for (initially) when introducing a definition of a sequence to this thread was to investigate the (possibly) numeric nature of a sequence, and consider the implications of a (possibly) infinite sequence. Eventually, I would hope to link that to the OP.Back to the subject! We can attach numbers to the items in a sequence but they can be misleading. We can see an expanding universe and what appears to be a residual microwave background, so it is tempting to presume an origin as t → 0 and an asymptotic thermal death as t →∞, but we know that we can only observe within the Schwarzchild limit so we should not be surprised if we are surprised and the observable universe decides one day to contract - the laws of physics are descriptive, not prescriptive.
What I said is : If A is a possibility then B might also be a possibility (because of the linkage).But you have no evidence for "the linkage".4
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how all the "things" in the Universe have a meaningful calendar.The problem we have is some evidence consistent with a Big Bang. Unfortunately the laws of physics that we have, don't work for t < 0. This suggests that the observable universe has a starting point, and as stuff changes from day to day, means of measuring elapsed time. Not sure what more you could need to make a consecutive Julian calendar.
Observing, testing, hypothesizing are "actions" that need to have taken place. The outcome of such is history. Knowledge thereby resides in a historical context.Tautology. Anything not based on observation is called "guesswork" or "lies".
You mention value. Who determines that value?The customer, of course. At one end, we can use the scientific method to cure disease or avert a disaster; at the other, folk are intrigued or entertained in a planetarium. Cash or applause are always welcome.
How would one explain the synthetic biology revolution? Would it not require a scientific status quo that accepts that science can be a valid guiding principle for evolution (for top down control of nature)?Drivel. Evolution is a natural process of mutation and selection. It has no principle or purpose. What you call "synthetic biology" is engineering towards a specific goal. Science is a process, not a principle.
1) science is looking back in time. The outcome of science is history.No, the outcome of science is knowledge. The fact that it is based on what we have observed is what philosophers call an amazing insight, but what the man in the street calls a statement of the bleeding obvious, because you can't formulate a scientific hypothesis until you have observed something. A hypothesis based on non-observation is called a dogma.
2) if nature changes in time, that may make science an invalid guiding principle for the future.It was never a principle. It is difficult to see how the process of observe, hypothesise, test, could be "invalidated", any more than you could invalidate the process of baking a cake - you would need a very idiosyncratic definition of validity to do so.
The scientific method is an example of a product of philosophy. It was created by philosopher Francis Bacon.Or Galileo, or Confucius, or Alhazen, or Roger Bacon (no relation). Or whoever built Stonehenge. Nothing to do with philosophy whatever.
The modern scientific practice or status quo appears to be based on a belief in uniformitarianism, the idea that what science observes remains the same in the future.Exactly the opposite of the truth.
If nature changes in time, how would science continue in the best way?By continuing to use the scientific process. It is inherently a successive approximation algorithm, which is what we use to pursue any target whose trajectory is unpredictable.