[Archive!] Pure mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.: brain-training problems not related to trade in any way - page 469
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I liked what you said.
Hello to you too,
let's live together.
:)
I honestly don't think it's a flood, because people should feel comfortable, cozy and fun everywhere - on the street, in the car, and on the internet. And if we don't maintain at least some fun on our own, life between Sakhalin and Kaliningrad will become quite boring. We don't deserve it, and may the schwartz be with us!
What do you mean by constructive, dear MetaDriver? Is it constructive if I transfer 30 roubles to you to webmoney?
Malavata would be.
What I mean by constructive in this context is, for example, a discussion of the criteria for a system.
Their indiscriminate denial still does not withstand the slightest reasonable criticism. Yours, for example.
Malavata will.
By constructive I mean in this context, for example, a discussion of the criteria for a system.
Their indiscriminate denial will not withstand even the slightest reasonable criticism. Yours, for example.
What is there to criticize, my dear? The fact that you (like me, of course), being stilted by the structure of your own body and mind (not determined by you) and the physics of the space around you (not determined by you), based on an advanced instinct of self-preservation, are cutting the world into pieces and giving these artificially cut out pieces some "meaning" - does it prove anything?
Well, a specific question. The Earth-Moon system. Does it IS? (here's another funny word).
When will it cease to be a system?
Cod, you can get a pretty clear definition of a closed system from thermodynamics. Not just a system (which is a general philosophical concept), but a closed system. It is a separated part of the world which has no exchange of heat, particles and work with its addition to the world with computationally acceptable accuracy. No anthropocentrism, milieu. Is that clear? And you're doing all this philosophical flubbery... what for?
About the system 'Earth-Moon': when it will be enough for you personally, as a Person, to consider that these bodies exist absolutely independently, then it will stop being a system. To be more precise, it will still be a system - but without connections between its constituent parts. For example, in the cultural sense they are absolutely independent parts. But in the gravitational sense, they are dependent.
... ... with a computationally acceptable precision...
That's what it's all about with Metadriver. We are our own QA. They say it's acceptable, so it works, so it's a system. An army approach.
Well, if it's KNOWLEDGE, it probably could use some physical strength, according to Francis Bacon - ban people like me, because I can't take such a determination seriously in any way.
UPDT By the way - "acceptable" - to whom? I wrote "anthropocentric fiction" from the very beginning. And here, on the first round I essentially get a confirmation of my words.
That's what it's all about with Metadriver. We are our own QA. They say it's acceptable, so it works, so it's a system. An army approach.
Well, if it is KNOWLEDGE, it probably could also use physical strength, according to Francis Bacon - to ban people like me, because I can not take such a determination seriously in any way.
1. Is the electron an object? Have you seen it? Is it there?
To begin with, there is no fundamental difference between "seeing" and "fixing with an instrument", just that in the latter case the instrument is man-made, while in the former, it is built into our body, so to speak. So, for example, the experience with the bubble chamber, from which I can get the values of mass and charge of electron, with the above said gives me grounds to assert - I saw an electron.
About systems. Generally, in science it is accepted that a system is not just a set of parts, but a set of parts which interact, or once interacted with each other. On the basis of this semi-formal definition you can answer one more question - since the Earth and the Sun interact at the moment, no matter how much you isolate them from each other later, they will not cease to be a system - and there are good reasons for this, which there is not enough space to reveal here.
Generally speaking, you are wrong to say that a system is simply a convenient way of describing something. That it is convenient is not in dispute. But a system is not just a superposition of parts and the interactions between them. It is, as a rule, also new properties which do not follow from properties of components, and this, probably, is the main reason why the concept "system" is in the centre of all natural sciences - it is a category reflecting in application to the subject of this or that science all basic laws of dialectics - transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, negation of negation, unity and struggle of opposites.
Fine with me. "I haven't read Thermodynamics - but I still don't agree with their army definitions of closed systems!"
Don't exaggerate. "Acceptable" accuracy - acceptable to whom? You'll deny the anthropocentrism that's coming out of the woodwork, not shying away from anything... Are you going to call voluntaristically assigned measurement accuracy limits science?
1. What's there to criticize, my dear? The fact that you (as well as I, certainly), being stiffened by structure of your own body and mind (determined not by you) and physics of space surrounding you (moreover not determined by you), on the basis of the advanced instinct of self-preservation you undertake to cut the world in pieces and to give these artificially cut out pieces some "value" - whether it proves something?
2. Well, a specific question. The Earth-Moon system. Does it HAVE? (here's another funny word).
3. When will it cease to be a system?
1. You too cut the world into pieces and give it all kinds of "meanings" and "meanings". You even take it upon yourself to judge me on the basis of what I do. That in itself proves nothing.
But it is possible to "cut in pieces" in a futile and unproductive way, or it is possible to obtain all sorts of conveniences and advanced possibilities. Even "miracles", in individual cases.
// Is it okay that I use suspicious terminology? You do too, don't you... :)
2. What do you think? Please state your thought in the form of a statement.
3. analogous to point 2.
Don't exaggerate. "Acceptable" accuracy - for whom is it acceptable? Are you going to deny the anthropocentrism that's coming out of the closet, not shying away from anything... Are you going to call voluntaristically assigned measurement accuracy limits science?