site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   3762 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for May 24, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yes, reality does not conform to our models, and therefore we should look to reality instead of retreating into theory.

Okay, so let's say I get on my bike and I ride for one hour at one mile per hour in a straight line. When I'm done, I will have traveled:

A. One mile

B. Two miles

Which of these answers most closely resembles reality?

I know how to do math, thank you.

Do you know how to do complex math?

I'll answer your question with my own. If I go a mile in either direction, what does the shape of the earth look like? Does it look curved, or does it look flat? Which one of these is a better model of reality?

All of the sensors and equipment on an airplane assumes a flat, stationary earth. They do that because the approximations are good enough, not because the earth is actually flat.

Yes, I do know how to do complex math.

If I go a mile in either direction, what does the shape of the earth look like? Does it look curved, or does it look flat? Which one of these is a better model of reality?

Of course it is curved, and furthermore a geoid.

Now that I've answered, please explain if 1 mile or 2 miles traveled at 1 mph after 1 hour is a better reflection of reality, and how that connects to why 1 x 1 = 2 is a reasonable statement.

Of course it is curved, and furthermore a geoid.

You can't tell that from walking around a mere mile. You can barely tell that at all. You certainly can't derive that from first principles without significantly more information.

That's the point. The flat earth model is a good one, for many things. Imagine, if you will, your house. It has walls, and those walls are vertical. For simplicity, let's say that a plumb bob was used, and that therefore the walls are plumb, and the ceiling which joins the walls at right angles is level. Except, it's not. The two plumb bobs are not parallel, and in fact converge. That doesn't matter for your house, because there's no difference at that scale. It's wrong to assume a flat earth, yet we do it anyway in many circumstances because the differences don't add up and aren't apparent.

In your example, if you travel for 1 hour, and at the end are 1 mile away, then you could say you averaged one mile per hour. However, in reality you were above and below that speed at many points throughout the hour. I say your hypothetical does not reflect reality, it merely approximates it locally.

Very interesting. However, I still am curious if 1 mile or 2 miles is a better reflection of the reality of my travel distance, since you said that 1x1=2 is looking at reality rather than avoiding it and retreating into theory.

So by all means, let's look at reality.

You can't tell that from walking around a mere mile.

You sure can if you're walking uphill.

The problem you’ve presented is not comparable to 1x1, but rather to (1x/y) x (1y), which would equal one in either system.

A better comparison is: you have a property that is 1 mile in length, and 1 mile in width. How large is it? Certainly not 1 mile. Is a response of 1 mile or 2 miles closer to reality?

I think the system we have for math is very useful, but it’s not necessarily cleaving reality perfectly at the joints, and maybe there’s a way it could be.

It's one mile, but you have very helpfully included units and a divisor.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats