- May 15, 2020
- 1,258
- 365
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
No point in discussing the non exidtent
Not in this forum, but I very much enjoy discussing Neil Gaiman's Sandman.
Upvote
0
No point in discussing the non exidtent
?? If there is nothing to distinguish them then they are the same theory...What happens when there is nothing to distinguish 2 theories? And anyone can reply to this.
?? If there is nothing to distinguish them then they are the same theory...
OK; if they are different theories that explain the same data with equal facility and are inseparable in term of the criteria for a good explanation, then there is no rationale for preferring one over the other, and both should be held equally likely / equally good explanations until they can be separated by new evidence, or unified - it's occasionally been the case that two apparently different theories turn out to be different formulations of the same underlying principles.I thought the context was evident. There was nothing per the correlation metric used relating model to data that distinguished them.
OK; if they are different theories that explain the same data with equal facility and are inseparable in term of the criteria for a good explanation, then there is no rationale for preferring one over the other, and both should be held equally likely / equally good explanations until they can be separated by new evidence, or unified - it's occasionally been the case that two apparently different theories turn out to be different formulations of the same underlying principles.
Having said that, there are always be those who will prefer one theory over the other for their own reasons.
I appreciate you being here, and I want your participation. I am, by nature, a very sarcastic person. Such doesn't translate well in an Internet forum so I have to be careful. The problem is, even when I say something meant to be fun and playful, it often comes across as sarcastic, which is death in this particular forum. You're not supposed to explain jokes, but in this instance I'll clarify that post #36 was meant to be that fun and playful thing.
No prob. But still, dont intro a topic you dont want discussed or challenged
Quantum mechanics was originally formulated as matrix mechanics by Heisenberg, but Shrodinger's wave mechanics was discovered to be exactly equivalent (but easier to use).Can YOU think of a example
Your replies confuse me. You seem to think I haven't given a real example, when I have. You seem to think I'm not open to being challenged. I am, but I want to confine discussion in this thread to a specific topic. If secondary topics seem important to you, I am willing to continue through DM or a different thread.
Quantum mechanics was originally formulated as matrix mechanics by Heisenberg, but Shrodinger's wave mechanics was discovered to be exactly equivalent (but easier to use).
I asked for a real example of competing theories, never got one.
I suggested not introducing " biss" if you dont want to discuss it.
You replied with something about sarcasm.
(as an aside, are these about vibration in complex structures? Or about simple elements like a single bar with a fixed end?)I mentioned nonlinear vibrations, which have multiple theories, one being Mathieu's method (deriving coefficients for a set of Mathieu functions) and another being Krylov's method (describing functions). A 3rd would be perturbation theory for small nonlinearities.
(as an aside, are these about vibration in complex structures? Or about simple elements like a single bar with a fixed end?)
Ok, lets get to question 2 please!
Maybe each one deserves a thread so the new question doesnt get buried?
I don't mind being tagged. As I am not qualified, I likely won't be responding but I will be reading.Though the first question was philosophical, the remaining 8 are specific to evolution. Sorry if that disappoints anyone.
I'm tagging everyone who replied to the first question. If you don't want me to do that for the remainder of the questions, just let me know: @Tinker Grey @durangodawood @Yttrium @Estrid @Frank Robert @essentialsaltes @FrumiousBandersnatch
Question #2: Given a DNA sequence, is there currently a means (based on the DNA alone) for determining if that sequence will produce a viable organism and what the morphology of that organism will be?
Question #3: Given the morphology of an organism, is there currently a means (based on morphology alone) for determining its DNA?
Can we go back the the philosophy of science questions?Question #2: Given a DNA sequence, is there currently a means (based on the DNA alone) for determining if that sequence will produce a viable organism and what the morphology of that organism will be?
Question #3: Given the morphology of an organism, is there currently a means (based on morphology alone) for determining its DNA?
Question #2: Given a DNA sequence, is there currently a means (based on the DNA alone) for determining if that sequence will produce a viable organism and what the morphology of that organism will be?
Question #3: Given the morphology of an organism, is there currently a means (based on morphology alone) for determining its DNA?
Can we go back the the philosophy of science questions?