'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

1 tjrob137 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Saturday 26 August 2017
2 tjrob137 Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Sunday 27 August 2017
3 Nicolaas Vroom Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Tuesday 29 August 2017
4 Ned Latham Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Tuesday 29 August 2017
5 tjrob137 Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Wednesday 30 August 2017
6 Nicolaas Vroom Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Wednesday 30 August 2017
7 Nicolaas Vroom Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Wednesday 30 August 2017
8 Paparios Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Wednesday 30 August 2017
9 shuba Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Wednesday 30 August 2017
10 Ned Latham Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Wednesday 30 August 2017
11 Odd Bodkin Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Thursday 31 August 2017
12 Ned Latham Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Thursday 31 August 2017
13 Nicolaas Vroom Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Thursday 31 August 2017
14 mlwo...@wp.pl Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Friday 1 September 2017
15 mlwo...@wp.pl Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Friday 1 September 2017
16 mlwo...@wp.pl Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Friday 1 September 2017
17 Nicolaas Vroom Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Friday 1 September 2017
18 mlwo...@wp.pl Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Friday 1 September 2017
19 Ned Latham Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Friday 1 September 2017
20 Odd Bodkin Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Friday 1 September 2017
21 mlwo...@wp.pl Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Friday 1 September 2017
22 Ned Latham Re :'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated' Saturday 2 September 2017

"Gedanken" vs "fabricated"
33 posts by 8 authors
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/mHY5ysZgNBI


1 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: tjrob137
Datum: Saturday 26 August 2017
On 8/24/17 8/24/17 3:18 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Gedanken experiments are all about logic and trying to understand how the universe works.

NO! Gedankens are about understanding a THEORY, and how it applies to some specific situation, which is often rather artificial (e.g. moving at 0.9 c, instantaneous accelerations to such speeds, etc.).

Gedankens are just that -- THOUGHTS, and cannot possibly enlighten anybody about the world we inhabit. That takes real experiments.

> [... more nonsense]

Tom Roberts


2 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: tjrob137
Datum: Sunday 27 August 2017
On 8/26/17 8/26/17 11:55 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:30:00 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 8/24/17 8/24/17 3:18 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> Gedanken experiments are all about logic and trying to understand how the universe works.
>> NO! Gedankens are about understanding a THEORY, and how it applies to some specific situation, which is often rather artificial (e.g. moving at 0.9 c, instantaneous accelerations to such speeds, etc.).

Gedankens are just that -- THOUGHTS, and cannot possibly enlighten anybody about the world we inhabit. That takes real experiments.

>

That's like saying we shouldn't use our imaginations, we should only do actual experiments.

Boy do YOU need to learn how to read! I said nothing at all like that.

Tom Roberts


3 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Tuesday 29 August 2017
On Saturday, 26 August 2017 15:30:00 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/24/17 8/24/17 3:18 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Gedanken experiments are all about logic and trying to understand how the universe works.
>

NO! Gedankens are about understanding a THEORY, and how it applies to some specific situation, which is often rather artificial (e.g. moving at 0.9 c, instantaneous accelerations to such speeds, etc.).

I don't agree with you. I think a thought experiment (Gedankens?) is more than understanding a theory. IMO a thought experiment in principle only makes sense that when you perform that same experiment in reality (if possible) the outcome should be the same.
The
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment is a real experiment and very difficult to do as a thought experiment (without knowing the final outcome) because it involves both SR and GR.

> Gedankens are just that -- THOUGHTS, and cannot possibly enlighten anybody about the world we inhabit. That takes real experiments.

Consider a train at rest on a platform. The observer is at a certain distance perpendicular to the center of the train. This defines the finish line. This means the observer is at equal distances between front and back of the train. Place a lamp at the front and one at the back of the train just behind the train such that the observer sees the front light and not the back light (this implies that the distance between the lamps is just smaller than the length of the train)
Place the train at far distance from the platform and start the train at high speed.
Question: When the train passes the finish line, will the observer see both lights on?
The issue is when there is length contraction involved the train will be shorter as the distance between the two lamps. This implies that the observer at far distance should see both lights on.

You can also place the train at a circular track and perform the same thought experiment. The observer is then in the center of the circle. The outcome is the same. IMO the only(?) solution is to perform both(?) experiments in real

Nicolaas Vroom.


4 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: Ned Latham
Datum: Tuesday 29 August 2017
Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> tjrob137 wrote:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >

Gedanken experiments are all about logic and trying to understand how the universe works.

> >

NO! Gedankens are about understanding a THEORY, and how it applies to some specific situation, which is often rather artificial (e.g. moving at 0.9 c, instantaneous accelerations to such speeds, etc.).

>

I don't agree with you. I think a thought experiment (Gedankens?) is more than understanding a theory. IMO a thought experiment in principle only makes sense that when you perform that same experiment in reality (if possible) the outcome should be the same.

IOW, "thought experiments" are not experiments at all; they are procedures for developing predictions based on the theory behind them.

----snip----


5 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: tjrob137
Datum: Wednesday 30 August 2017
On 8/29/17 8/29/17 9:16 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 August 2017 15:30:00 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 8/24/17 8/24/17 3:18 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> Gedanken experiments are all about logic and trying to understand how the universe works.
>>

NO! Gedankens are about understanding a THEORY, and how it applies to some specific situation, which is often rather artificial (e.g. moving at 0.9 c, instantaneous accelerations to such speeds, etc.).

>

I don't agree with you.

Doesn't matter, that's what the word MEANS.

Tom Roberts


6 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Wednesday 30 August 2017
- show quoted text - And then what do you do next?

Suppose two people make different predictions based on the outcome of the same thought experiment. How do you decide who is right? Maybe the theorie is wrong.

Nicolaas Vroom


7 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Wednesday 30 August 2017
- show quoted text - Sorry but I still don't agree with you. (Maybe it is better that I write: I only agree partly with you?) A thought experiment should be more than that. You can perform a thought experiment using a certain theory and predict the outcome, but does that make your theory correct? does that prove something? IMO no.
Anyway you have to be very carefull when performing thought experiments. You can claim that you have a spaceship that travels at a speed of 0.9 c but how do you know that?
You say it your self: "it is often rather artificial". That is tricky because what you have in your mind it should be physical possible. Suppose in my thought experiment I use a speed of 2c is that allowed?

What for example about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_spaceship_paradox? Also this is a thought experiment. Does the string break yes or no?

The issue is length contraction. but can you solve that with a thought experiment?

Nicolaas Vroom


8 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: Paparios
Datum: Wednesday 30 August 2017
Translate message into English El miércoles, 30 de agosto de 2017, 11:17:49 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 01:39:27 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 8/29/17 8/29/17 9:16 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 26 August 2017 15:30:00 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > >> On 8/24/17 8/24/17 3:18 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >>> Gedanken experiments are all about logic and trying to understand how the universe works.
> > >>

NO! Gedankens are about understanding a THEORY, and how it applies to some specific situation, which is often rather artificial (e.g. moving at 0.9 c, instantaneous accelerations to such speeds, etc.).

> > >

I don't agree with you.

> >

Doesn't matter, that's what the word MEANS.

>

Sorry but I still don't agree with you. (Maybe it is better that I write: I only agree partly with you?) A thought experiment should be more than that. You can perform a thought experiment using a certain theory and predict the outcome, but does that make your theory correct? does that prove something? IMO no.

Not is that the purpose of a gedanken, On the contrary, the theory is built on certain postulates and laws and its mathematics are assumed to be correct. Gedankens are used to test for possible inconsistencies of the theory. So at the end a good gedanken could probably falsify a theory or verify it but never proof it right. Examples of this are the so called "paradoxes".

> Anyway you have to be very carefull when performing thought experiments. You can claim that you have a spaceship that travels at a speed of 0.9 c but how do you know that?

It is set as a condition of the thought experiment. These conditions are clearly artificial but, as said before, the purpose is to check what is the theory response.

> You say it your self: "it is often rather artificial". That is tricky because what you have in your mind it should be physical possible. Suppose in my thought experiment I use a speed of 2c is that allowed?

If you are designing a gedanken for SR or GR, that condition is contrary to the theories postulates, that is that the speed of light in vacuum (the maximum speed of propagation of information) is always c.

> What for example about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_spaceship_paradox? Also this is a thought experiment. Does the string break yes or no?

The issue is length contraction. but can you solve that with a thought experiment?

Nicolaas Vroom

Of course the string breaks, as hundreds of papers have demonstrated.


9 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: shuba
Datum: Wednesday 30 August 2017
Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

> What for example about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_spaceship_paradox? Also this is a thought experiment. Does the string break yes or no?

The issue is length contraction.

No. It's actually very simple. Continuously stretching a string will eventually cause its internal molecular bonds to fail. Stretching a string means an increase in its proper length.

---Tim Shuba---


10 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: Ned Latham
Datum: Wednesday 30 August 2017
Translate message into English Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > > tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > >

Gedanken experiments are all about logic and trying to understand how the universe works.

> > > >

NO! Gedankens are about understanding a THEORY, and how it applies to some specific situation, which is often rather artificial (e.g. moving at 0.9 c, instantaneous accelerations to such speeds, etc.).

> > >

I don't agree with you. I think a thought experiment (Gedankens?) is more than understanding a theory. IMO a thought experiment in principle only makes sense that when you perform that same experiment in realityi (if possible) the outcome should be the same.

> >

IOW, "thought experiments" are not experiments at all; they are procedures for developing predictions based on the theory behind them.

>

And then what do you do next?

Precisely. The whole thing is worthless if you can't test it.

> Suppose two people make different predictions based on the outcome of the same thought experiment.

One or both of them got it wrong.

> How do you decide who is right?

Or even whether either of them is?

> Maybe the theorie is wrong.

No "thought experiment" will reveal that. Of course, it might inspire a definitive physical experiment.


11 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: Odd Bodkin
Datum: Thursday 31 August 2017
On 8/30/17 8:50 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 20:41:34 UTC+2, Ned Latham wrote:
>> Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>>> tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>

NO! Gedankens are about understanding a THEORY, and how it applies to some specific situation, which is often rather artificial (e.g. moving at 0.9 c, instantaneous accelerations to such speeds, etc.).

>>>

I don't agree with you. I think a thought experiment (Gedankens?) is more than understanding a theory. IMO a thought experiment in principle only makes sense that when you perform that same experiment in realityi (if possible) the outcome should be the same.

>>

IOW, "thought experiments" are not experiments at all; they are procedures for developing predictions based on the theory behind them.

>

And then what do you do next?

Suppose two people make different predictions based on the outcome of the same thought experiment.

Since a thought experience is doing rigorous DEDUCTION from a set of given assumptions, then this cannot happen without one of those people having made a rather obvious error in deductive logic.

That's the purpose of a theory, to be able to come up with clear and unambiguous PREDICTIONS from a set of assumptions, which predictions can then be put to test in a REAL experiment. The thought experiment is the process by which those predictions are generated.

> How do you decide who is right? Maybe the theorie is wrong.

Nicolaas Vroom


12 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: Ned Latham
Datum: Thursday 31 August 2017
Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> >

And then what do you do next?

Suppose two people make different predictions based on the outcome of the same thought experiment.

>

Since a thought experience is doing rigorous DEDUCTION from a set of given assumptions, then this cannot happen without one of those people having made a rather obvious error in deductive logic.

Well done, Slow Boy! You've paraphrased my response to the question quite nicely. Well, a little verbosely, but never mind that.

> That's the purpose of a theory, to be able to come up with clear and unambiguous PREDICTIONS from a set of assumptions, which predictions can then be put to test in a REAL experiment. The thought experiment is the process by which those predictions are generated.

Oh, and again, well done! You've paraphrased what I said above... again, a tad verbosely, but all in all quite nicely.

That's very good work, Slow Boy; you might not be very good at thinking but you certainly are good at the copycat routine.

> > How do you decide who is right? Maybe the theorie is wrong.

But you didn't do my response to that question... too hard for you?


13 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Thursday 31 August 2017
On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 16:35:08 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 30 de agosto de 2017, 11:17:49 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom:
> > Sorry but I still don't agree with you. (Maybe it is better that I write: I only agree partly with you?) A thought experiment should be more than that. You can perform a thought experiment using a certain theory and predict the outcome, but does that make your theory correct? does that prove something? IMO no.
>

Not is that the purpose of a gedanken, On the contrary, the theory is built on certain postulates and laws and its mathematics are assumed to be correct. Gedankens are used to test for possible inconsistencies of the theory.

Using a thought experiment you can only predict a possible outcome of a thought experiment, which is different from a real experiment. The only way to test a theory (or better to falsify a theory) is by performing a real experiment.

> So at the end a good gedanken could probably falsify a theory or verify it but never proof it right.

That is correct and that limits the applicapability.

> > Anyway you have to be very carefull when performing thought experiments. You can claim that you have a spaceship that travels at a speed of 0.9 c but how do you know that?
>

It is set as a condition of the thought experiment. These conditions are clearly artificial but, as said before, the purpose is to check what is the theory response.

And has a limitted value.

> > What for example about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_spaceship_paradox? Also this is a thought experiment. Does the string break yes or no?

The issue is length contraction. but can you solve that with a thought experiment?

>

Of course the string breaks, as hundreds of papers have demonstrated.

These papers ansich say 'nothing'. Part of the problem is that the Bell's spaceship paradox is too complex.

Consider a much simpler experiment:
Consider two bullet trains, which each a length of 1 km which travel each on two parallel tracks. The trains are completely identical and are electrical controlled by at least one internal clock. But trains are started simultaneous side by side. The internal controls take care that each train follows the same program to increase its speed: 100 km/hour 200 km/hour 300 km/hour 1 km/sec 10 km/sec etc. Because both train follow exactly the same program the expectation is that both train will run side by side for the whole trip. Q: Is that realistic? IMO the answer is Yes.

Now perform the same experiment with the different initial condition that one train will start in front of the other such that the end of one train will be the nose of the other train. (they will still travel each on their own track) Again like in the first experiment both train will start simultaneous and follow the same program. The question in this case is: Will the distance between the back of the first train and the nose (front) of the second train increase or stay the same? When the distance increases this is equivalent as when the string breaks, which is equivalent which length contraction.

Anyway this experiment is much more complex than the experiment I previously proposed using two lightsignals to demonstrate length contraction. (or not)

The true question is can you really use any thought experiment to demonstrate that length contraction is real (i.e. is a physical effect) IMO the anser is: No.

Nicolaas Vroom


14 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: mlwo...@wp.pl
Datum: Friday 1 September 2017
W dniu sroda, 30 sierpnia 2017 16:35:08 UTC+2 uzytkownik Paparios napisal:

> Not is that the purpose of a gedanken, On the contrary, the theory is built on certain postulates and laws and its mathematics are assumed to be correct.

No. The purpose of gedanken is simple. After 20-30 copies of gedanken "how an observer confirms relativity in a train/boat/plane" an idiot like you start believing these confirmations are real.


15 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: mlwo...@wp.pl
Datum: Friday 1 September 2017
W dniu czwartek, 31 sierpnia 2017 21:13:57 UTC+2 uzytkownik Odd Bodkin napisal:

> That's the purpose of a theory, to be able to come up with clear and unambiguous PREDICTIONS from a set of assumptions, which predictions can then be put to test in a REAL experiment. The thought experiment is the process by which those predictions are generated.

:)You're as naive as you are dumb.


16 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: mlwo...@wp.pl
Datum: Friday 1 September 2017
W dniu czwartek, 31 sierpnia 2017 23:24:16 UTC+2 uzytkownik Nicolaas Vroom napisal:

> Using a thought experiment you can only predict a possible outcome of a thought experiment, which is different from a real experiment. The only way to test a theory (or better to falsify a theory) is by performing a real experiment.

Yeah. Take a real car, accelerate it to 0.9c and go through a barn... what will you see? Poor idiot.


17 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Friday 1 September 2017
On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 17:02:16 UTC+2, Ned Latham wrote:
> Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > IOW, "thought experiments" are not experiments at all; they are procedures for developing predictions based on the theory behind them.
> >

And then what do you do next?

>

Precisely. The whole thing is worthless if you can't test it.

I agree.

> > Suppose two people make different predictions based on the outcome of the same thought experiment.
>

One or both of them got it wrong.

I agree

> > How do you decide who is right?
>

Or even whether either of them is?

I agree

> > Maybe the theorie is wrong.
>

No "thought experiment" will reveal that. Of course, it might inspire a definitive physical experiment.

I agree.

IMO thought experiments can be helpfull, for example they can be used to discuss different experiments (and you can predict the outcomes) as an introduction for real experiments, but they cannot be used as a final tool to unravel the laws of nature.

You also have to be carefull for the theories and postulates used to predict the outcome. Maybe when you perform a real experiment to explain the outcome you don't need all these theories and postulates or the actual experiments are much more complicated (and you also need others) That's why I always propose to make the (thought) experiments as simple as possible.

A typical case is the Schrödingers Cat paradox. Do you really need a cat? Do you really need an observer? The most important thing is what happens inside the box and that is radio active decay of a particle (which has a certain half live).

When you want to study how clocks behave, the first step is qualitative behaviour and then quantitative behaviour. With qualitive behaviour I mean that the experiment should indicate/demonstrate that when 'you' want to go from A to B using two synchronised clocks at A, when they meet at B the clock readings can be different. Quantitative behaviour means how much. The result of the experiment should be to agree that it actual makes a difference how you go from A to B. Next comes to identify which particular parameters influence this behaviour and how do you explain that. It is easy possible that different reference frames have nothing to do with this and one is enough.

Nicolaas Vroom.

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 16:35:08 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 30 de agosto de 2017, 11:17:49 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom:
> > Sorry but I still don't agree with you. (Maybe it is better that I write: I only agree partly with you?) A thought experiment should be more than that. You can perform a thought experiment using a certain theory and predict the outcome, but does that make your theory correct? does that prove something? IMO no.
>

Not is that the purpose of a gedanken, On the contrary, the theory is built on certain postulates and laws and its mathematics are assumed to be correct. Gedankens are used to test for possible inconsistencies of the theory.

Using a thought experiment you can only predict a possible outcome of a thought experiment, which is different from a real experiment. The only way to test a theory (or better to falsify a theory) is by performing a real experiment.


18 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: mlwo...@wp.pl
Datum: Friday 1 September 2017
W dniu piatek, 1 wrzesnia 2017 15:34:52 UTC+2 uzytkownik Nicolaas Vroom napisal:

> IMO thought experiments can be helpfull, for example they can be used to discuss different experiments (and you can predict the outcomes) as an introduction for real experiments, but they cannot be used as a final tool to unravel the laws of nature.

Bullshit. The reality is much simpler - after hearing 100 or more times that an observer in a train see relativistic wonders you start believing they're real; that's what gedanken are for.


19 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: Ned Latham
Datum: Friday 1 September 2017
mlwozniak wrote:
> Nicolaas Vroom write:
> >

IMO thought experiments can be helpfull, for example they can be used to discuss different experiments (and you can predict the outcomes) as an introduction for real experiments, but they cannot be used as a final tool to unravel the laws of nature.

>

Bullshit.

You're wrong again Woz. A thought experiment is just that: a thought, nothing more.

> The reality is much simpler - after hearing 100 or more times that an observer in a train see relativistic wonders you start believing they're real; that's what gedanken are for.

Belief is not reality, Woz, though the two sometimes intersect.


20 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: Odd Bodkin
Datum: Friday 1 September 2017
Ned Latham wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>>>

And then what do you do next?

Suppose two people make different predictions based on the outcome of the same thought experiment.

>>

Since a thought experience is doing rigorous DEDUCTION from a set of given assumptions, then this cannot happen without one of those people having made a rather obvious error in deductive logic.

>

Well done, Slow Boy! You've paraphrased my response to the question quite nicely. Well, a little verbosely, but never mind that.

>>

That's the purpose of a theory, to be able to come up with clear and unambiguous PREDICTIONS from a set of assumptions, which predictions can then be put to test in a REAL experiment. The thought experiment is the process by which those predictions are generated.

>

Oh, and again, well done! You've paraphrased what I said above... again, a tad verbosely, but all in all quite nicely.

That's very good work, Slow Boy; you might not be very good at thinking but you certainly are good at the copycat routine.

Well, given that your prior answer didn't explain it sufficiently for Nicolaas,.....

>
>>>

How do you decide who is right? Maybe the theorie is wrong.

>

But you didn't do my response to that question... too hard for you?


21 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: mlwo...@wp.pl
Datum: Friday 1 September 2017
W dniu piatek, 1 wrzesnia 2017 19:55:34 UTC+2 uzytkownik Ned Latham napisal:
> mlwozniak wrote:
> > Nicolaas Vroom write:
> > >

IMO thought experiments can be helpfull, for example they can be used to discuss different experiments (and you can predict the outcomes) as an introduction for real experiments, but they cannot be used as a final tool to unravel the laws of nature.

> >

Bullshit.

>

You're wrong again Woz. A thought expewrinebt is just that: a thought, nothing more.

So are your "laws of nature".

> > The reality is much simpler - after hearing 100 or more times that an observer in a train see relativistic wonders you start believing they're real; that's what gedanken are for.
>

Belief is not reality, Woz, though the two sometimes intersect.

Beliefs are a part of reality, poor idiot. And gedankens are a tool to shape them.


22 'Gedanken' vs 'fabricated'

From: Ned Latham
Datum: Saturday 2 September 2017
mlwozniak wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > mlwozniak wrote:
> > > Nicolaas Vroom write:
> > > >

IMO thought experiments can be helpfull, for example they can be used to discuss different experiments (and you can predict the outcomes) as an introduction for real experiments, but they cannot be used as a final tool to unravel the laws of nature.

> > >

Bullshit.

> >

You're wrong again Woz. A thought experiment is just that: a thought, nothing more.

>

So are your "laws of nature".

*My* laws of nature? You're not confusing me with the Voices in your head, are you Woz?

> > > The reality is much simpler - after hearing 100 or more times that an observer in a train see relativistic wonders you start believing they're real; that's what gedanken are for.
> >

Belief is not reality, Woz, though the two sometimes intersect.

>

Beliefs are a part of reality, poor idiot.

Only inasmuch as people *have* beliefs, Woz.

> And gedankens are a tool to shape them.

Have you noticed how nicely "geddanken" rhymes with "wankin'"?

Back to USENET overview USENET
Back to my home page Contents of This Document