Link: Copy link
Yep, that's Artificer philosophy in a nutshell: Physical reality doesn't have any bearing on what dimensions it's comprised of; it's whatever some Artificer can pull out of their, ahem, imagination, no matter how absurd, and craft into an equation, that trumps everything. Why, an Artificer can entertain multiple alternative "realities" at once as all equally "valid", even when they are mutually contradictory.wendy.krieger @ Jan 11 2018, 10:36 AM wrote:The dimensions are in the equations, not the quantities.
If the purpose of a symbol in an equation is to stand for a constant of proportionality, then by definition it cannot be a "variable". A constant can admit of only one value (including its dimensionality). If an Artificer nevertheless proposes that this symbol admits of multiple possible values, all equally "valid", then it is, by definition a "metavariable". Especially if the Artificer's excuse for the multiplicity is that different Artificers at different times have proposed different values for the symbol, and we must, of course, include them all. Of course, only one value can possibly reflect physical reality. Artificers ignore this, so enamored are they of their symbolic artifice. But if the "variability" is entirely a thing of the Artificer imagination, then it is "meta".There are no metavariables in any equations. They are variables.
I know sophistry when I see it.wendy.krieger @ Jan 11 2018, 03:28 PM wrote:You don't understand, do you?
Science is about describing and explaining the physical world, as closely as we can manage, and as simply as we can, without introducing unnecessary junk into the explanation. That's one of the corrollaries of Occam's Razor.Science is not about 'right' and 'wrong'.
Yes. And the chief one being: Dispense with obsolete models when they fail to explain too many of their anomalies, and replace them with better models. Modern thermodynamics doesn't need to accommodate the phlogiston theory as part of some grand metamodel, simply because some obscure history-obsessed amateur might want to read really, really old phlogiston research papers.It's about working models, that are reproducable and reliability. Where thers vary from nature, the difference is an anomaly, which is dealt with in many different ways
What, pray tell, do the differences between Newton's and Einstein's models have to do with the dimensional analysis of the unit systems we use? I see absolutely no conflict with using the same units for both, and even for Quantum Mechanics. Time, space, mass, electricity, energy, etc., etc. are still measured in the same units in all these models. You can't just hand-wave at us and claim there is a conflict just to score rhetorical points -- you have to demonstrate it.That we have special relativity, does not mean we abandon newtonian relativity. Newtonian relativity is what they teach in even university grade causes, and SR is an adjunct in some streams. We know that the anomaly between nature and newton, is less than the error for many cases, and while this is true, Newton serves the matter.
The doubt is already there, Wendy. You earn those "rabbit-ears" by engaging in your dubious arguments promoting your dubious notions. Scoffing at the criticism under the rubric "rabbit-ears" does not weaken the criticism in the slightest.Of course, we see rabbit-ears creeping in to cast doubt.
Hah! You just made my argument for me, Wendy: C preprocessor macros were one of the first (and one of the crudest) forms of metaprogramming. Except that you apparently don't know the first thing about them, because first you get the syntax wrong (the directives are spelled #define and #if, #ifdef, #ifndef, etc., no uppercase, no ending #). And second of all, those are called directives, which go to the C preprocessor, which is a text-manipulation program that runs during compilation time, a phase in which a program is being built, and not when it is actually run. Those are not statements, because that term is reserved for a line of code of the actual target programming language (in this case C) which executes at run-time.There is no difference in setting \(\gamma=4\pi\), than using something like an #DEFINE# statement in C, or setting the value with the type. The purpose of \(\gamma\) is to write single equations for CGS and SI, so it's a matter of setting an IF_DEFINE statement. Really.
As a matter of fact, I am familiar with Knuth's Literate Programming paradigm, and did play with his weave and tangle preprocessors, which are part of that. About 30d years ago. It's a premiere example of metaprogramming. If Wendy insists on making my case against her metavariables for me, I certainly won't stop her. I wonder, though, how she presumes to know anything about what I have and haven't done in my programming career. But Knuth is hardly the last word in metaprogramming. It's a technique I've used and encountered in many different contexts using many different programming platforms.wendy.krieger @ Jan 18 2018, 08:59 AM wrote: Kode has never used 'weave' and 'tangle', where there can be many programs that process the input file, and lead to output files.
Really, icarus ought to.consider splitting the whole discussion of Wendy's obsolete EM notions, starting from around this post of hers from Jan 3, and move the lot into a new thread under Wendy's Cough subforum. And maybe some of the discussion centered around DK ought to be split off into another thread too. The diversions from the OP have gotten way out of hand.Kodegadulo @ Jan 12 2018, 06:07 PM wrote:Well, it's been fun debunking you all over again, Wendy, but now icarus's poor thread here has been hopelessly derailed. I would not blame him if he excised this whole latest back-and-forth and dumped it into an off-topic thread. I don't think I'll prolong this any further, it's gotten quite tedious and boring rehashing all the same drivel from you again. I suggest if you want to pursue this matter any further, you start a thread about it in your own subforum.
My favorite vest-pocket specimen is how rap stars brag about their gold chains. "Its 36 inches long, with 10mm wide links. Half a kilo of 18 caret gold"I use mixed-radix arithmetic constantly. Not only in my own exotic concoctions (base infinity : dozenal : octal-hexadecimal, etc.) but in hours-minutes-seconds, degrees-minutes-seconds, feet-inches-fractions thereof.
True, but cheap calculation devices are a double-edged sword: yes, they kind of take the pain out of using a strict coherent unit system. But they also take the pain out of using a mixed unit system, by making it easy to convert between units. That's probably why cheap calculators haven't killed all these non-coherent units we use all the time. When we are estimating or doing it in our heads, we can remain free to choose the units which make that the most easy, knowing that when we have to calculate the precise answers we can let the calculators do the heavy lifting for us.The situation is, by that point people are wont to use calculation devices.
*chuckle* you are nobody until Icarus gives you a cool nick-name ;-)Therefore I support your assertion, hexie (I lurrrrve the avatar.
Agreed. In fact, until you do such an exercise, you don't know for sure where the real pain points are. Whether throwing in a non-coherent unit actually fixes a problem, or is just more ad-hockery.But that doesn't nullify the validity or interest in studying a coherent twelve system.