Perhaps. But in the meantime people who believe in and use concepts like derivatives, integrals, position, velocity, momentum, energy, etc. send probes to the moons of Jupiter and beyond. But I guess you dismiss that with the same argument with which you dismiss nuclear reactor design using probabilities.
Frenemy? You ain't seen nothing unless you've had a teenage daughter recently. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, Oct 2, 2021, 10:17 AM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Frank, > > > > As I say, it boils down to a question of who controls the meaning of > velocity. Now we can, of course, have different realms of discourse where > velocity means one thing to you and another to me, so long as we are very > clear and do not equivocate about which meaning we are using. The problem > is, of course, that in the discourse I am most familiar with, equivocation > goes on all the time. Now there might be an interesting line of argument > where you assert that “the limit of the ratio of distance to time as time > approaches 0” is exactly what the “common man” means by velocity. He > doesn’t quite have those words for it, but as the car is hurtling down on > him standing in the middle of the road and he says that car is coming FAST, > he is interested in the instantaneous motion (whatever that could possibly > be!) of the car. I think that is wrong. I think he is interested in > whether the car is going to cover the distance between itself and him > before he covers the distance between him and the edge of the road, but > perhaps there is a sense in which the instantaneous velocity is used to > bridge from his perception of the motion of the car in the last second to > his perception of it’s motion in the next few. Thus he uses a kind of > abduction to reach a category we call “the velocity of the car” and from > that category deduces the time of arrival of the car at his point in the > road. This idea … that we use experience to make up useful fictions -- aka > “categories, essences, reals, etc.”-- from which we then infer events is a > newish one to me and I want to think about it more. Somehow, to assert > that all categories, all “generals” are fictions seems right to me right > now. If we are to arrive at the place where all categories are fictions > then we must have a way to distinguish between virtuous and vicious > fictions. And not just the Jamesian way. > > > > But, Frenemy Frank, you must recognize the absurdity you have let yourself > in for when you write dualist non-sense such as “This is theoretical and > approximates what happens in the physical world.” > > > > There is no moment when we know the world. To use your language, all we > know is our theories of the world. The world divides out of the equation. > We are in the businesses of prediction future experience from past > experience and the world plays no part in that business *except as theory*. > > > > > N > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Saturday, October 2, 2021 10:37 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Newborn Heart Rate > > > > Velocity is the derivative of location with respect to time. In > three-space it's a three component vector as is location. > > > > In freshman physics at Carnegie Tech we studied these concepts with strobe > lights, cameras, and frictionless (almost) pucks. > > > > Frank > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Sat, Oct 2, 2021, 8:29 AM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Frank, > > > > Well, as usual, it’s a question of who get’s the words. In the world in > which I was raised a velocity is a change in position over a change in > time. No change in distance, no velocity. Velocity at an instant is a > mathematical fabulation in the same way that wanting at an instant is a > fabulation. My problem as a “thinker” is that I want to dismiss the > latter, but I cannot dismiss the former. > > N > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Friday, October 1, 2021 10:01 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Newborn Heart Rate > > > > Nick, i hope this helps. Given a fair die that hasn't been thrown the > probability that it will come up 2 (or any of the other particular values) > on the next throw is 1/6 by definition of fair. Given that it has been > thrown and ceterus paribus the a posteriori probability that it shows 2 > given that it does is 1.0. In that case the probabilities of each of the > other values is 0.0. > > > > The acceleration of an object with constant velocity is 0.0. If the > velocity is changing the acceleration is the instantaneous change in > velocity the knowledge of which is limited by the ability to measure that. > The acceleration of an object whose velocity is described by a closed form > mathematical function is the derivative of that function as we learned in > calculus. The derivative is defined by limits. This is theoretical and > approximates what happens in the physical world. > > > > Questions and comments are welcome. > > > > Frank > > > > > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021, 7:21 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I thought the conversation about probability, category errors, and > crossing boundaries between levels of organization was interesting and I > was sorry I had to leave it. I want to say that to speak a die as having > a probability of 1/6 of coming up 6 on a single throw is a category error > because it is not a property that can be displayed on a single throw. It’s > the same worry that I have often deployed about the calculus. If we take > the idea of a category error seriously, then acceleration is just not the > sort of thing an object can have at an instant. But just as clearly as > this argument is too strong – lots of very nice longstanding bridges have > been built with the calculus – so the argument is also too strong with > respect to probability – lots of nice atom bombs have been built with > probability theory … or something. > > > > I care about this because my standard account of such concepts as > “wanting” is that they are properties of the population of responses to an > object, not properties of any one of those responses. We encounter the > same problem with anecdotes and newspaper photographs designed to > illustrate some general fact. If the generally fact is that “very few of > the immigrants at the southern border are well treated” a single photograph > looking peaked or hungry is irrelevant. Equally irrelevant would be a > picture of a bright eyed kid sitting in the lap of a border patrol officer > eating a hot-fudge sundae. > > > > This makes me wonder about one of the foundations of psychological > research, the statistics of inference, which I think Peirce invented. Let > a coin be thrown 10 times and each time come up heads. What I think Peirce > would have me conclude is that that coin is unlikely to be drawn from a > population of fair throws of a fair coin. But, of coure, what we are > likely to conclude is that “this coin is not fair.” But that could be as > misguided, couldn’t it, as concluding that the kid in the lap of the border > patrol officers is being mistreated. > > > > I apologize, once more, for sharing my comfusions with you. > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Friday, October 1, 2021 6:46 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* [FRIAM] Newborn Heart Rate > > > > > https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/61/1/119 > > > > This is for those who attended this morning's vFriam meeting. I was > Schachter's colleague, among a couple of others. > > > > > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/