Imagination.

[James R]

IOW, they distinguishable.

I explained to you why they are not.

Of course they do. Scientists use all kinds of colloquialisms in conversational context.

Yes, they do - when they aren't doing science.

IMO, any discussion about imagination requires "out of the box" thinking.

Looks like you missed the point again.

I know what magnitude means!

Well, you've been told. Whether that leads to knowledge or not remains to be seen.

I prefer to use the term "length of time" over the term "magnitude of time", lest I be accused of pretentiousness.

I have no problem with your using the term "length of time" to mean "time period" or "duration" or similar. As long as you're aware that a time interval is not the same as a length interval, confusion is unlikely.

At least no one can accuse me of a lack of imagination.

There's no problem with imagination, as long as you don't confuse your imaginings with facts.

OTOH, I can make that claim about others being locked in their box, no imagination.

Are you thinking about anybody specific?

Colloquialism
It is the most common functional style of speech, the idiom normally employed in conversation and other informal contexts

I have emphasised the important bit for you. Hope this helps!

Oops, MW is wrong! That should read: for more than a very small magnitude of time

Or perhaps (better): "for more than a a very small duration".

Wrong!!!!!
That should read; "I get sick if I ride in the back seat of a car for any magnitude of time."

No, that's not wrong. The context is informal there. See?

Wrong!!!!! That should read; "If you're in town for any magnitude of time, be sure to see the museum".

And again.

 

[James R]

Question: can you make sense of what I am saying, or do I confuse your understanding of what I am saying?

Speaking for myself, the message I take often away from many of your posts is simply that you're most likely confusing or conflating different concepts, or inappropriately conflating different meanings of the same word. You don't seem to realise that there's a difference between colloquial and scientific meanings of certain words.

I don't mind being corrected on the science, but as long as I can find the word in credentialed dictionaries and apply it in proper context, even as a colloquialism, I see no reason to hunt for a formal scientific term in my narratives.

How can you discuss "the science" without using correct scientific language?

I mean, at a very superficial level, it is possible. Probably scientists will be able to guess at what you might mean when you use certain words. But don't you think it would be better for all involved if you made an effort to actually use words in their correct scientific senses, when you want to talk about science?

Do you see any value in actually learning how scientists use the words in the scientific papers, articles and explanations that you read from them? If not, why not?

This sort of thing doesn't just apply to science, by the way. If a musician tells me that the variations in the dynamics of a piece of music are interesting to her, it's no use in my talking to her about the varying speed of the piece of music, or how "lively" it sounds to me. She isn't talking about those things. Worse, it's no use in saying to her that when I say the piece is "dynamic" I mean that it sounds "bouncey" to me, and it's just fine for me to use the word "dynamic" to mean "bouncey" whenever I'm talking to a musician about the intricacies of a musical composition. And it would be both presumptuous and rude for me to tell her that my understanding of the term "dynamics" is "as correct" and useful as hers is, in the context of her specialist knowledge.

I do not pretend to write formal scientific papers, just my understanding of the fundamentals.

It would be wrong of me to claim that I "understand the fundamentals" of music if I insist that "dynamics" means "bouncey".

Note: the problem here is not that my comment that the music sounds "bouncey" is wrong. It's just that the "bounciness" actually has nothing to do with "dynamics", in the sense that that term is defined by knowledgeable musicians.

 

[Write4U]

I explained to you why they are not.

Why do they have different names?

Yes, they do - when they aren't doing science.

Are we doing science here? Or are we informally talking about science in context of imagination?

Looks like you missed the point again.

What point have I missed talking about imagination?
Seems to me that being able to look at things from different perspectives requires imagination.

Well, you've been told. Whether that leads to knowledge or not remains to be seen.

I have been told one specific instance of using the term magnitude in context of time. OTOH I read, understood, and presented an entire page of dictionary definition of magnitude in context of just about everything that is measurable in arbitrary increments that are magnitudes of a basic quantity.

I have no problem with your using the term "length of time" to mean "time period" or "duration" or similar. As long as you're aware that a time interval is not the same as a length interval, confusion is unlikely.

I am aware of that and if you have no problem with my use of the term "length of time", then what on earth is all the hullabaloo about??????????????????????????

There is no problem with imagination, as long as you don't confuse your imaginings with facts.

Why do you assume that I confuse imaginings with facts, when I clearly am able to separate imagination from facts.

Are you thinking about anybody specific?

No, I don't engage in insulting a person's intelligence or ability to think imaginatively (thinking out of the box) and looking at "equations" as looking at something from different perspectives.

I have emphasised the important bit for you. Hope this helps!

I always appreciate your efforts to assist in clarification of issues, even if IMO they are redundant to what I have already posted and clarified.
See my use of the term "length of time" in a conversational context, with examples where magnitudes of time are used out of context. It was not necessary to insist that I should use the magnitude in context of my posit.

Or perhaps (better): "for more than a very small duration".

Sure, or perhaps (even better): "for more than very small magnitude of duration". I don't particularly like the word "more" in context of "size".

No, that's not wrong. The context is informal there. See?

Exactly, the use of magnitude in this context would be wrong. I posted this in attempt at derision.

And again.

And again I cited this example in derision of the persistent harping on an issue that did not even needed to be addressed in context of the discussion.

If I am obscure at times, it's not because I don't understand what I am talking about. It is usually because I am able to look at things from different perspectives.

See Roger Antonsen.

 

[Write4U]

Speaking for myself, the message I take often away from many of your posts is simply that you're most likely confusing or conflating different concepts, or inappropriately conflating different meanings of the same word. You don't seem to realise that there's a difference between colloquial and scientific meanings of certain words.

Perhaps you are focusing too much on semantics than on content.

How can you discuss "the science" without using correct scientific language?

Because we scientist do it all the time and people smile knowingly and nod their heads.

I mean, at a very superficial level, it is possible. Probably scientists will be able to guess at what you might mean when you use certain words. But don't you think it would be better for all involved if you made an effort to actually use words in their correct scientific senses, when you want to talk about science?

Exactly, but I am not prone to pedantry. I usually address science from a fundamental philosophical perspective, rather than a narrow scientific using complicated formulas and a blackboard to "prove" a proposition.

Do you see any value in actually learning how scientists use the words in the scientific papers, articles and explanations that you read from them? If not, why not?

No, not at this stage of my life. I am 82 years old.

This sort of thing doesn't just apply to science, by the way. If a musician tells me that the variations in the dynamics of a piece of music are interesting to her, it's no use in my talking to her about the varying speed of the piece of music, or how "lively" it sounds to me. She isn't talking about those things. Worse, it's no use in saying to her that when I say the piece is "dynamic" I mean that it sounds "bouncey" to me, and it's just fine for me to use the word "dynamic" to mean "bouncey" whenever I'm talking to a musician about the intricacies of a musical composition. And it would be both presumptuous and rude for me to tell her that my understanding of the term "dynamics" is "as correct" and useful as hers is, in the context of her specialist knowledge.

It would be wrong of me to claim that I "understand the fundamentals" of music if I insist that "dynamics" means "bounce".

Having been a professional bass player with a fifteen year career playing the big city "circuit" plus Las Vegas, Reno, Lake Tahoe, I can speak with some authority about the dynamics of music, like "tension" and "release".

If you have never listened to any of my links to what I believe are modern musical masterpieces, I invite you to listen, really listen to what I believe is a brilliant composition, performed by extraordinary artists.

It is called "Finding and Believing". It's from an album, appropriately called "Secret Story"

I was never that good, but that's where my mind dwells. Would you say that was "bouncy"?

Note: the problem here is not that my comment that the music sounds "bouncey" is wrong. It's just that the "bounciness" actually has nothing to do with "dynamics", in the sense that that term is defined by knowledgeable musicians.

Rest assured that you will never hear me refer to a musical composition as bouncy. Children are bouncy!

 

[Write4U]

This may give some perspective on our need for imagination, being that our experience of reality is actually a very small portion of reality.

Is it possible that GPT4 might exceed the human brain in computational abilities?

 

[sideshowbob]

I gave you the courtesy of attention, until you used it to tell the world what a dunce I am

You did that all by yourself.

There is a length of time . Movement measured .

Tell that to sideshowbob.

I'm glad that river is on your side and not mine.

 

[Write4U]

You did that all by yourself.

No, I did not, you did. It is those snide remarks that makes civil discourse impossible.

I'm glad that river is on your side and not mine.

Your problem is that you are prone to unfounded assumptions and make rash and often erroneous conclusions without actually having examined the issues.

River and I are not on the same side. But instead of verbal war, we have a courteous exchange of different perspectives. As a result, we have found some areas of agreement and that allows us to have a civilized relationship, something that seems impossible with some other posters.

 

[sideshowbob]

River and I are not on the same side.

Well, he's on your side. If everybody else thinks you're wrong, it's possible that you're wrong. If river thinks you're right, it's damn near certain that you're wrong.

 

[Write4U]

Well, he's on your side. If everybody else thinks you're wrong, it's possible that you're wrong. If river thinks you're right, it's damn near certain that you're wrong.

river doesn't think I'm right. We agree on some items. river is just using a probative approach to anything he thinks does not agree with his POV. He is courteous and open to considering alternated proposals.

OTOH, if this is your way of conducting scientific argument, I am not impressed.

Not "everybody" thinks I am wrong. That is an absolute and is not allowed in science, remember. Moreover I have shown abundant proof that my use of the term "length of time" in context is perfectly acceptable to "everybody" and is even described and defined in detail in dictionaries and encyclopedias, evidence that you just have ignored, another nono in science. Your are engaged in trolling, much as you believe you are justified in doing so.

 

[sideshowbob]

Not "everybody" thinks I am wrong. That is an absolute and is not allowed in science, remember.

True. Instead of denying it for forty posts, I'll agree that I could have been more precise: Everybody posting in this thread disagrees with you, except for river.

Moreover I have shown abundant proof that my use of the term "length of time" in context is perfectly acceptable to "everybody" and is even described and defined in detail in dictionaries and encyclopedias, evidence that you just have ignored...

So you go from "proof" to "evidence" in one sentence. That's another example of your imprecision.

And if there's anything you've said that I've "ignored", feel free to be specific.

 

[Write4U]

True. Instead of denying it for forty posts, I'll agree that I could have been more precise: Everybody posting in this thread disagrees with you, except for river.

Then I'll assume that those who are not posting do agree, which are many except for those few who disagree...

So you go from "proof" to "evidence" in one sentence. That's another example of your imprecision.

Yep, evidence is always proof of something, even if we do not always know what of.

And if there's anything you've said that I've "ignored", feel free to be specific.

OK. I'll even add "dismissed" to ignored the many examples I provided where the term "length of time" is not only appropriate but where the term "magnitude" is inappropriate.
Example: 5 minutes is not a magnitude of 2 minutes. It is a magnitude of 1 minute, as is 2 minutes. Yet each measurement has a "length" associated with their measurement and is a common property of both.

An order of magnitude is an approximation of the logarithm of a value relative to some contextually understood reference value, usually ten, interpreted as the base of the logarithm and the representative of values of magnitude one. Logarithmic distributions are common in nature and considering the order of magnitude of values sampled from such a distribution can be more intuitive. When the reference value is ten, the order of magnitude can be understood as the number of digits in the base-10 representation of the value. Similarly, if the reference value is one of certain powers of two, the magnitude can be understood as the amount of computer memory needed to store the exact integer value.

Differences in order of magnitude can be measured on a base-10 logarithmic scale in “decades” (i.e., factors of ten).[1] Examples of numbers of different magnitudes can be found at Orders of magnitude (numbers).

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

 

[billvon]

Everybody posting in this thread disagrees with you, except for river.

Which is first on the list of "top ten signs your argument is pretty bad."

So you go from "proof" to "evidence" in one sentence. That's another example of your imprecision.

Well, keep in mind that this is the guy who doesn't even know the meaning of the words he uses in his arguments. Expecting precision is something of a reach.

 

[Write4U]

Which is first on the list of "top ten signs your argument is pretty bad."

Yeah, another minor oversight on your part.

I have no problem with your using the term "length of time" to mean "time period" or "duration" or similar. As long as you're aware that a time interval is not the same as a length interval, confusion is unlikely.

Thank you James , for this constructive reply.

Well, keep in mind that this is the guy who doesn't even know the meaning of the words he uses in his arguments. Expecting precision is something of a reach.

Yes it requires a measure of imagination.

Semantics, semantics, semantics ........ When are we going to address content, content, content......?

 

[Write4U]

 

[sideshowbob]

Then I'll assume that those who are not posting do agree, which are many except for those few who disagree..

That's like Trump assuming that everybody who didn't vote was supporting him.

Yep, evidence is always proof of something, even if we do not always know what of.

Nope. Evidence and proof are two different things.

Example: 5 minutes is not a magnitude of 2 minutes. It is a magnitude of 1 minute, as is 2 minutes.

I don't know what that rubbish is supposed to signify. It bears no resemblance to anything I said.

 

[sideshowbob]

Do you own a mirror?

 

[Write4U]

Do you own a mirror?

No, my image doesn't show up in mirrors. I am only a product of my brain's imagination.

 

[Write4U]

Nope. Evidence and proof are two different things.

No, not really. They are very much related.

ev·i·dence , noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   
   Similar: proof , confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration

Definitions from Oxford Languages

 

[exchemist]

No, not really. They are very much related.

ev·i·dence , noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   
   Similar: proof , confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration

Definitions from Oxford Languages

Thereby perfectly illustrating sideshowbob's point.

You either (a) cannot grasp that "similar" does not mean "synonymous", or (b) want to pretend for the moment that it does, in order to avoid having to make a concession.

 

[Write4U]

Speaking for myself, the message I take often away from many of your posts is simply that you're most likely confusing or conflating different concepts, or inappropriately conflating different meanings of the same word. You don't seem to realise that there's a difference between colloquial and scientific meanings of certain words.

That sometimes there's a difference between colloquial and scientific meanings. Is there a remarkable difference between "water" or "ice" and "H2O"?
Actually, it's more trying to equate seemingly separate concepts. You know my position on the fracturing of science from specialization.