What qualifies as science?

I admit, poor choice of words

I know the definition, I've looked at them all. But I am not addressing the definition of energy, but the definition of potential, which by definition is "that which may become reality" regardless of form.

Unlike a closed water tap, where the kinetic force of water continues to apply pressure, when you turn off a light switch, the electric current is broken and does not exist at all, except in a potential state. When you turn the switch to "on" this potential becomes expressed as the electric current flowing to the light bulb, etc.
snip

Of course, but I am not addressing the separate and specific meaning of just a word. I am trying to address a concept which is universally true. IMO, potential (a latent excellence or ability) is a term for a concept which is universally true as "that which may become reality". IMO, it means that whereas not all potential becomes expressed in reality, all reality shares a common denominator of having been preceded by potential.

A caterpillar has the potential to become a butterfly, unless it gets picked off by a bird and that potential remains unrealized, in fact it vanishes with the death of that caterpillar. But there are many caterpillars with the same potential, which make it through the process of metamorphosis and are reborn as butterflies.

Thank you, I shall read it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am very pleased to see this debate is now focusing on the problems you get into if you flip-flop between the general and the scientific meanings of terms. Potential is an excellent example. Function is another.

One needs to be very clear indeed, in discussion of a scientific subject, in which sense one is using terms such as these. Function is especially dangerous for Write4U, as its general meaning indicates what an object or system does, whereas its mathematical definition is far more specialised. If one makes observations about all the physical objects and systems that do something, and then tries to argue from that that the whole physical world is mathematics, that is a clear case of flip-flopping from one meaning to the other and thereby drawing false conclusions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Noted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But an electric potential isn’t "something that may become reality", it is already real. So if there is a fundamental abstract common denominator to all usages of the word potential, it’s not that.

How is a "pure Potential" related to an electric potential?

As long as you don’t mix up the different usages. In the future, if you want to express a "preceded by" relation, please don’t use an equal sign, but (for example) an arrow.

I see you have dodged the question. I will ask it again: what is the fundamental abstract common denominator between the two usages of the word "gay"?

 

In my view the issue in this latter part of the thread isn't incorrect use of scientific technical vocabulary, it's the MUCH deeper and more fundamental metaphysical problem of what mathematics' relationship is to physical reality.

It might be helpful for Write4U's opponents to heed the principle of Interpretive Charity

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

I don't believe that Write4U has been misusing the word 'function'. Physics is typically conducted in classrooms and in theoretical physicists' seminar rooms in terms of equations. These seem to me to be mathematical functions.

Where the mathematics of physics differs from pure mathematics, is that there's an additional assertion being made that the functions up there on the chalkboard not only describe relationships between variables on the chalkboard, but hold true as well between variables measured in physical reality. And if we define 'function' as a particular mapping relationship between variables, then the function would seem to be present and applicable somehow in physical reality. In the formal correspondence sense it would hold true of physical reality.

Describing precisely what's happening there and what it implies about the nature of reality itself is a very difficult, very deep and as yet unsolved problem in the metaphysics of natural science.

But nevertheless, it's what the so-called "laws of physics" seem to be.

That's what it seems to me that this is all about. I haven't read all of the recent posts though. Nevertheless it's the aspect of the problem that most interests me and the one that I think is most important. I sense that it's what Write4U wants to talk about, even as others try to shout him down without acknowledging the underlying question themselves.

I'm personally inclined to think that this problem of the physical applicability of mathematics might be related to the problem of why mathematics is objective rather than subjective. (Which one would expect if it was just a mental construction, a product of fantasy and imagination.) If a mathematician in the United States produces a proof of a particular result, why do we expect mathematicians in Germany, India and Japan to reach the same conclusion? Why does it seem that mathematical results, relationships and structures are discovered rather than invented?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/

 

Please note what happened in posts #411 and #412. Write4U was asked to give his/her definition of the word "function" as (s)he was using it, and we get two completely different ones. Both are valid, sure, but cannot be applied at the same time. It may not be misuse, but it is clear as mud when the context doesn't clearly indicate which definition is meant.

 

See also post 86, here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/qm-randomness.159457/page-5 in which Write4U claims that concepts such as Chaos, Probability and Randomness are mathematical functions.

Or post 168 from the same thread, in which Write4U asserts that Geometry, Quantum Mechanics and Chemistry are mathematical functions: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/qm-randomness.159457/page-9

And post 225 from the same thread in which Write4U asserts that some putative expansion and contraction of the universe is a "wave like function".

Evidently he has no clear concept of what he means by "function". And consequently nor do we, when we read his posts.

 

The way Write4U was using 'function' in #411 seems to be the one that arises in the 'physical applicability of mathematics' problem. I think that Write4U is aware of a very deep and fundamental problem in understanding reality itself. The best way to address it isn't to try to shout him down or to find fault with his use of words. He's a layman. He's doing his best. At least he perceives the problem, which is a start.

#412 addressed whether he always uses 'function' the same way. He pointed our that the 'function' of an axe is to chop wood. Biologists often use 'function' in that teleological way, so it isn't necessarily an un-scientific usage. But it's not the usage that's relevant here. The current discussion seems to be about the relationship between the mathematical functions on theoretical physicists chalkboards and the 'laws of physics' that arguably seem to involve the same relationships between measurable real-life physical variables.

 

I'd say that if you can describe physical events formally in terms of mathematics, in such a way that particular sets of variables with particular values determine a particular result, then the relationship between those physical variables and the result would seem to constitute a function in some sense. Physics does that all the time, in fact it seems to consist of little else.

So what other interpretation do people want to give mathematical physics?

 

Firstly, even in mathematical physics, you cannot say physics is "a function". That is arrant nonsense. It is like saying a book is a sentence, "in some sense". It isn't.

You can say that the concepts of the subject are all related by a very large collection of equations, but even then you still need words to describe what the concepts are. Even something as commonplace as energy cannot be adequately defined simply by means of a collection of symbols in an equation. I can write E=Fd, or E=hν, or E²=(mc²)² + (pc)² but what do any of them mean, unless someone explains the concepts involved? In words.

The concepts of the model come before the mathematics.

Secondly, as soon as you move away from mathematical physics, in other words to most of science, you do not have mathematical models that can do any better than approximate how nature seems to behave. And sometimes not even that. That is true of my own discipline for instance. The models of organic chemistry are very sophisticated and successful but are almost entirely unmathematical. Biology? Geology? Mineralogy? Same thing.

 

Did you not just state that electric "current" is real. Electric potential is latent, such as the electric potential of a battery?

From my understanding of Bohmian Mechanics, "pure (undefined) potential" is an abstraction, more like a "field of possibilities", but is mother to all individually defined potentials (implicates) of all universal functions. A hierarchical order of an abstract but progressive evolution from possibility to probability to certainty, finally explicated as reality.

Ah yes, of course. In context of potential, only when the Implicate has a probability of 100% can we use the equal sign. Until then the progression is identified with an arrow, meaning "leading to"?

My error was grounded in the idea that the word "football" includes all forms of football, even as each league has it's own rules and regulations i.e. Canadian , Australian, minor leagues, touch football, flag football, etc.

a) it does not pertain to science, and
b) allows for poetic liberties, which are not allowed in science (hence the necessary corrections of my sometimes semantic liberties when discussing scientific subjects...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

I explained a little of the history and evolution of actual definition and meaning and later interpretations of the word gay at a social level. IMO, the word "gay" does not define homosexuality, but a type of non-sexual behavior. It's really a misnomer.

Check out the word "dandy" where the word "macaroni" indicates an intricate hairstyle or wig at that time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Often consulting the dictionary, I found that the oldest words have the most definitions which convey a fundamental social abstract idea rather than the exactness required by scientific disciplines.

"Home" is such an old word and can be used in many context, such as "home-base" in baseball, and the word "Food" is another word with many unrelated facets, such as used in "food for thought", or "feeding one's ego", again expressing an abstract idea other than just ingesting and digesting an "edible" substance.

Interestingly the most recently invented words have narrow definitions, with a notable exception of the word "interface", which was originally a specific computer term, but is evolving into many interpretations of "connecting" separate but compatible systems of many kinds.

 

The electric potential is partly analogous to the water pressure. Neither the flow of water or the flow of electricity exist when the path is blocked. Electric potential does not cause ordinary light bulbs to emit light.

That definition conflicts with the technical usage in the term "electric potential".

That also differs from many other uses - for example, in the aspect that potential is something possessed by a defined thing.

 

The electric potential is partly analogous to the water pressure. Neither the flow of water or the flow of electricity exist when the path is blocked. Electric potential does not cause ordinary light bulbs to emit light.

That definition conflicts with the technical usage in the term "electric potential".

That also differs from many other uses - for example, in the aspect that potential is something possessed by a defined thing.

Electric potential is produced by a battery, not possessed by it. Even measured across the terminals of a car battery, the potential is not "in" the battery as the potential of becoming a butterfly is somehow "in" a caterpillar.
The potential for a battery to produce an electric potential - across a light switch, say - is a higher order usage of the term. The potential of an uncharged battery to be charged, and thereby acquire the potential of creating an electric potential across a light switch, is another level higher yet - consider what would be involved in measuring that, or even defining the units of measurement.

 

As posited you are correct, but when you turn off the water tap, the water still exerts a pressure against the tap, whereas when you turn the light switch "off" there simply is no electricity in the line, all the way from the junction box to the switch.
But the potential for electrical current flow remains, all you need is to restore the circuit by turning the switch to "on" and the entire line from the junction box becomes (what?)...electrically energized?

Rather than completely messing this up, allow me to quote;

and

Yes, an inherent (latent or active) ability or excellence.

A battery is not a circuit, yet it has the potential to produce electricity. If you are not grounded, you can touch either one of the poles without producing an electric flow of any kind.

Oh I agree, the hierarchy of orders of potentials from the very subtle (abstract) Implication leading to Explication in physical reality (actual work performed), also determines the exactness by which we can make measurement or predictions.

If we do not charge the battery it still has the potential that it can be charged. When it is charged it acquires an electric potential (or is it electric potential energy?), which is available but may remain latent, until it is hooked up to the car, and only when you switch on the car lights this hierarchy of ordering potentials becomes explicated in its full glory. You now can also start the car's engine (via a switch), which until that time only had the potential to propel the car. And if your car is capable of going 100 mph, but you are restricted to driving at 30 mph, the engine still retains the potential to go 100 mph, but alas most of that excellence remains latent , until you reach the highway and put the pedal to the metal, utilizing the full potential of the car's ability to do work.
Thus a hierarchy of potential abilities becoming explicated from an uncharged battery to driving your car at 100 mph, which may have an Implicate potential for receiving a speeding ticket.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

IMO, this is what Bohm calls this the hierarchy of orders from an Implicate order of enfolded abilities (potentials) to perform work, to the work becoming unfolded Explicated order in reality.[/quote]

And this is how I see the philosophical term "pure potential" as an all encompassing term as; "that which may become reality. But of course there has to be a specific potential for any specific action or function.

As you said ; "higher levels."

 

I would expect somebody that's doing their best to be better at keeping the different definitions of a word separated. But that might just be me.

Ok, summary time. You claim that:
1) Write4U is aware of these different definitions of the word "function".
2) The answer in post #412 is irrelevant for this discussion.

Post #412 is a direct respons to the question how (s)he uses the word "function". If you now say the answer is irrelevant, and that Write4U knows that, don't you have to conclude that Write4U is intellectually dishonest?

 

No, "something that may become reality" is per definition not part of reality yet.

Just so I understand correctly: the electric potential is an "individually defined potential (implicate)" in your words?

It has nothing to do with probabilities. An equal sign means "equal", so please only use it when the two things on either side are equal.

Yep.

A cow is an animal, but not all animals are cows. So: cow = animal is wrong. cow -> animal might not be fantastic either, but at least it's clear from that that animal -> cow isn't necessarily true. (So yes, we agree here.)

US English, meh.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You have once again dodged my question! I will ask it again again: what is the fundamental abstract common denominator between the two usages of the word "gay"?

 

Nonsense. The wires are full of electrons, all moving around, trillions of them.

Now you are confusing electric potential with electric potential energy.

No, it doesn't.

Meanwhile, making measurements is not at all the same thing as making predictions. A butterfly from a caterpillar is not measured in units of work performed, does not proceed from abstract to expressed, and can be recorded exactly - as one unit of whatever it is - at both ends of the process and at several intermediate steps.

Neither one would be "latent" - except in a metaphorical sense.

Caterpillar to butterfly is not in the same hierarchy as uncharged battery to lit light bulb. It's not clear to me it involves multiple logical levels of potential at all.

 

It's a sidebar to the discussion admittedly but this needs correction. There is no such thing as "kinetic force". Pressure in a closed water tap has nothing to do with motion of any kind. It is STATIC pressure. Pressure means a force per unit area, exerted by a static fluid in all directions.

 

I thought I had that sufficiently explained.

Can you be gay and sad at the same time or can you be homosexual and sad at the same time?
The one is a joke a classical sense, the other real life. Personally, finding a true common denominator, I would state it as an evolutionary process of word morphing. From a historical perspective the word gay has been in use much longer than the word homosexual and is the a priori definition, but it appeals to the ego in both definitions.. It is a socially acceptable term, for both sides, for different reasons. Movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction. Can I throw in political "necessity and sufficiency".

 

How do you detect a dead wire?

Does it make a difference?
snip

IMO, measurements make predictions possible.

Yes, it describes the expressed forms of its inherent potential, which lies dormant until a natural DNA instruction begins the process of metamorphosis, IOW, the organism has two distinctly different coding structures in its DNA

Why not also in the real world, where we even have proof of the process. Then it is this caterpillar which cannot breed but can only eat, while its sexual implicate lays dormant until a command code starts the process of metamorphosis and the caterpillar has disappeared and in its stead lies a crown jewel of nature. The price of this remarkable biochemical "mathematical miracle" is a short life, wherein it cannot eat ( it can drink) but its sole instinct is to mate.

Except that the potential for every described event or state or condition or function had to exist before the event, Bohm's hierarchies of deterministic enfolded and unfolded orders. Fits GR, QM, now Darwin...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, sorry I couldn't resist.

My claim is that potential by its various definitions precedes or is an active part of the natural mathematical evolutionary process of an "unfolding" reality and is a cosmological "common denominator".