[Archive!] Pure mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.: brain-training problems not related to trade in any way - page 470
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
To begin with, there is no fundamental difference between "seeing" and "fixing by an instrument", just that in the second case the instrument is man-made, while in the first, it is built into our body, so to speak. Therefore, for example, 1. experience with a bubble chamber, from which I can get values of mass and charge of electron, with the said, gives me grounds to assert - I saw an electron.
About systems. In general 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 semiformal 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.
Thank you for your comprehensive answer. Seriously.
It is a pity that you have not written about "good reasons" of inviolability of the Earth-Sun system... I don't know if there are gravitational waves and if they are damped... Anyway, it seems to be one of the biggest mysteries of modern science (I mean gravitation), and it would be unreasonable for me to question anything here, for our complete lack of understanding of the subject.
About the system implying some new properties. And you give me an example.
"cutting into pieces" can be wasteful and unproductive, or it can be with all sorts of comforts and advanced capabilities.
Ooh, duck, you might as well replace me on this thread when the bandit bullets riddle me to bits.
Convenience and niceness - it has nothing to do with anthropocentrism, does it?
Science is "purely abstract".
I will deny it. It doesn't go anywhere if the notion of a system is applied correctly.
Right, wrong, acceptable, not so much... Did you live in the USSR? A lot of what we do now did not fall into the category of rightness then... But there is nothing. We live. So why are you arguing with the fact that our definition of "systems" is a purely utilitarian thing?
About the system implying some new properties. Give me an example.
Since we started with elementary particles.
Imagine a proton, an electron, and a neutron. Combined into an atom, you get a system. A new property, like the ability to form a crystal lattice. Elementary particles can't do that.
Moving on. You take an oxygen atom and a couple of hydrogen, put them together and you get water. Water molecules can enter chemical reactions in which atomic oxygen and hydrogen do not participate.
You take a few molecules of water - hundreds of three, under normal conditions. You get a microscopic droplet of water. A group of water molecules is able to pull apart molecules of other substances into their component parts (make them dissociate) - we got a new property, the ability to dissolve.
We could go on and on...
1. Ooh, duck, you might as well replace me on this branch when the bandit bullets riddle me to bits.
2. Convenience and niceness - has nothing to do with anthropocentrism, does it?
3. science is "purely objective".
1. I can. lehko. But I won't. Not interested at all.
2. I don't give a shit if they do or don't. I'm not going to fight and argue around anthropocentrism. Neither for nor against it.
It was, is and will be. You can suffer for it. Or go out on a limb there, for example. Then others will follow... ;)
3. science is "purely subjective". Like any map. But good science builds maps suitable for use in the territory. How about a game of cards?
In statistical thermodynamics, there are quite specific calculations that allow us to estimate with what marginal accuracy we can measure or calculate thermodynamic quantities. If the interaction of parts of a system is so weak that it affects these measurements/calculations much less than this marginal accuracy, then these interactions can be neglected. Where is your lauded anthropocentrism here?
About the system implying some new properties. Give me an example.
Let alsu come up with his own example, surely more interesting than mine. And I'll give you mine, a chemical one.
Sodium is a soft metal that can be cut with a knife. Very reactive chemically. A human cannot eat pure sodium because it will burn from the inside out.
Chlorine is a poisonous yellow-green gas. You can't breathe it. And it's also very reactive chemically.
Both substances are almost non-existent in free form in nature, but they can be obtained with the help of chemistry.
But table salt, which we eat every day, is white solid crystals, quite harmless. It is a chemical compound (system) resulting from a reaction between sodium and chlorine.
Well neither sodium, nor chlorine had salinity, nor hardness, nor the relative harmlessness of salt. These are the new properties of the system compared to its components.
Since you started with elementary particles.
Imagine - a proton, an electron, and a neutron to boot. Combined into an atom - we got a system. A new property, like the ability to form a crystal lattice. Elementary particles can't do that.
Go further. You take an oxygen atom and a couple of hydrogen, put them together and you get water. Water molecules can enter chemical reactions in which atomic oxygen and hydrogen do not participate.
You take a few molecules of water - hundreds of three, under normal conditions. You get a microscopic droplet of water. A group of water molecules is able to pull the molecules of other substances apart (make them dissociate) - obtained a new property, the ability to dissolve.
You could go on and on...
Yes, indeed, you could go on and on, you'll get sweaty...
Before you go one step further, can you explain to me how you are so sure that these very protons and neutrons exist in nature at all, that it is not just a way to describe properties of matter manifested in similar situations?
1. I can. Lehko. But I won't. I'm not interested.
2. I don't give a shit whether they have it or not. I am not going to fight and argue around anthropocentrism. Neither for nor against.
It was, is and will be. You can suffer for it. Or go out on a limb there, for example. Then others will follow... ;)
3. science is "purely subjective". Like any map. But good science builds maps suitable for use in the territory. How about a game of cards?
MetaDriver - I hate gambling. Only the ones where everything is fair. Hvorex through dc for example. :)
Actually, in point 3 you have only confirmed my thoughts. Only if for me this "usefulness" of science is its weakness, for you it is the opposite. That's all, in essence.
Yes, indeed, you could go on and on, you'll break a sweat...
Before you go one step further, explain to me how you are so sure that these very protons and neutrons exist in nature at all, that it is not just a way of describing properties of matter manifesting in similar situations?
If the interaction of parts of a system is so weak that it affects these measurements/calculations much less than this precision limit, then these interactions can be neglected. Where is your lauded anthropocentrism here?
...... The table salt that we eat every day is a solid white crystal that is quite harmless. It is a chemical compound (system) resulting from a reaction between sodium and chlorine.
Well neither sodium nor chlorine had salinity, nor hardness, nor the relative harmlessness of salt. These are the new properties of the system as compared to its components.
1. That's where my "praised" anthropocentrism sits. Well, there you have decided that you can be dismissive. Voluntarism.
2. What are the new properties? That one mix of components will kill a person and the other will not? Does the word ANTHROPOCENTRISM ring a bell?
:) You guys are funny.