Effectuationism

[Peter]

Hi folks,

Gerard, given your paper, you are probably seriously searching for good sense. You may therefore be interested in this url:
http://www.effectuationism.com

Peter

[Gerard]

Hi folks,

Gerard, given your paper, you are probably seriously searching for good sense. You may therefore be interested in this url:
http://www.effectuationism.com

Peter

Gerard: Thanks Peter! I'll give this a looksie.

[Peter]

Hi folks,

Gerard, given your paper, you are probably seriously searching for good sense. You may therefore be interested in this url:
http://www.effectuationism.com

Peter

Gerard: Thanks Peter! I'll give this a looksie.

No hurry - I can see you're busy, as am I too for some days, as it so happens.

If it does catch your attention, perhaps you should start a new thread for it, as it really does not belong here (copy and paste from here if appropriate).

[Gerard]

Hi folks,

Gerard, given your paper, you are probably seriously searching for good sense. You may therefore be interested in this url:
http://www.effectuationism.com

Peter

Gerard: Thanks Peter! I'll give this a looksie.

No hurry - I can see you're busy, as am I too for some days, as it so happens.

If it does catch your attention, perhaps you should start a new thread for it, as it really does not belong here (copy and paste from here if appropriate).

Gerard: Yes, but I'm looking forward to sitting down and giving it some attention when I get a good space. I'll be sure to let you know what I think!

[Gerard]

Hi folks,

Gerard, given your paper, you are probably seriously searching for good sense. You may therefore be interested in this url:
http://www.effectuationism.com

Peter

Gerard: Thanks Peter! I'll give this a looksie.

No hurry - I can see you're busy, as am I too for some days, as it so happens.

If it does catch your attention, perhaps you should start a new thread for it, as it really does not belong here (copy and paste from here if appropriate).

Gerard: I read through the description page, and I did think it contained 'good sense'. I wasn't sure how to actually look at your 'system', without buying your book. My favorite illustration was the one in which children used empiricism to justify their Santa-centric system.

[Peter]

Gerard: I read through the description page, and I did think it contained 'good sense'. I wasn't sure how to actually look at your 'system', without buying your book. My favorite illustration was the one in which children used empiricism to justify their Santa-centric system.

That is fine; I just wanted a reaction to that introduction page. It really focuses on making the point that any concept is a feature of a model, and that a model is informed by and expresses a premise. Likewise, as you pretty much say, "empiricism" does not get us past operating in a model.

So, this would seem to bring us to choosing a premise, and thereby the concepts which emerge and the model they comprise. Now, going into my philosophy system just to say that it does not express a space and time world of discrete objects.

Therefore, all this Relativity stuff would not feature in an Effectuationism informed model.

I do have the rudiments of what may make an alternative to, shall we say, navigation issues being discussed in recent posts here. You may be interested in having a look at them.

However, first perhaps you could help me out with a few questions I have regarding the SR model's application to navigation:
How do the NASA people on earth know where the preferred/stationary satellite is?
Or/And how does it know where it is in relation to positions on earth?
(All the focus I've come across seems to be on how other satellites are positioned relative to the preferred frame sat).

Perhaps it keeps in touch with positions on earth via, such as, positioned beacons? If so, it would presumably need to be able to see a few at the time and its elevation relative to them?

[CCC]

It really focuses on making the point that any concept is a feature of a model, and that a model is informed by and expresses a premise.

Well, yes. That's a feature of models.

What it doesn't seem to tell us is what premises effectuationism uses.

[Peter]

It really focuses on making the point that any concept is a feature of a model, and that a model is informed by and expresses a premise.

Well, yes. That's a feature of models.

What it doesn't seem to tell us is what premises effectuationism uses.

ccc, Like I said in my last post I want to proceed in a particular order. I posted some questions and if I can get past that issue I would then proceed to the rudiments of a navigation system which I have formulated. Whether I then move further into Effectuationism is quite another matter.

[Gerard]

Gerard: I read through the description page, and I did think it contained 'good sense'. I wasn't sure how to actually look at your 'system', without buying your book. My favorite illustration was the one in which children used empiricism to justify their Santa-centric system.

That is fine; I just wanted a reaction to that introduction page. It really focuses on making the point that any concept is a feature of a model, and that a model is informed by and expresses a premise. Likewise, as you pretty much say, "empiricism" does not get us past operating in a model.

So, this would seem to bring us to choosing a premise, and thereby the concepts which emerge and the model they comprise. Now, going into my philosophy system just to say that it does not express a space and time world of discrete objects.

Therefore, all this Relativity stuff would not feature in an Effectuationism informed model.

I do have the rudiments of what may make an alternative to, shall we say, navigation issues being discussed in recent posts here. You may be interested in having a look at them.

However, first perhaps you could help me out with a few questions I have regarding the SR model's application to navigation:
How do the NASA people on earth know where the preferred/stationary satellite is?
Or/And how does it know where it is in relation to positions on earth?
(All the focus I've come across seems to be on how other satellites are positioned relative to the preferred frame sat).

Perhaps it keeps in touch with positions on earth via, such as, positioned beacons? If so, it would presumably need to be able to see a few at the time and its elevation relative to them?

Gerard: I would be interested in hearing about the navigation system featured in your model. Unfortunately, I am not very knowledgable about GPS, or how (and if) it employs SR. There is an interesting discussion of it in a thread by Xuqut, in 'Logical Debate of the Evidence'. JammyTown and CCC have been theorizing about it, and Xuqut has his own model to explain it.

A frequenter of this site, named Raphael, has an interesting theory, which makes a lot of sense to me. According to his model, the entire material universe can be described as a variegated pressure gradient of 'Aether'. Hence, gravity, electromagnetism, et al. are intimately related and subtly unified (as your description of your system suggests). According to Raphael's description, the earth would act as a sort of provisional Absolute Reference Frame, because of the aether that is intimately connected to and entrained with it. On and near earth, therefore, the speed of light would be constant relative to this provisionally 'stationary' aether (and this would not be in conflict with MMX). This would mean, I suppose, that a GPS based upon SR would fit nicely into his theory (though I haven't seen him comment on GPS).

[Peter]

Gerard: I would be interested in hearing about the navigation system featured in your model. Unfortunately, I am not very knowledgable about GPS, or how (and if) it employs SR. There is an interesting discussion of it in a thread by Xuqut, in 'Logical Debate of the Evidence'. JammyTown and CCC have been theorizing about it, and Xuqut has his own model to explain it.

A frequenter of this site, named Raphael, has an interesting theory, which makes a lot of sense to me. According to his model, the entire material universe can be described as a variegated pressure gradient of 'Aether'. Hence, gravity, electromagnetism, et al. are intimately related and subtly unified (as your description of your system suggests). According to Raphael's description, the earth would act as a sort of provisional Absolute Reference Frame, because of the aether that is intimately connected to and entrained with it. On and near earth, therefore, the speed of light would be constant relative to this provisionally 'stationary' aether (and this would not be in conflict with MMX). This would mean, I suppose, that a GPS based upon SR would fit nicely into his theory (though I haven't seen him comment on GPS).

PK: Hi Gerard,

Sorry for the delay. It's in part due to not having this thread set-up for e-mail notification.

Ok, I'll provide a link to my model, further down.

I see no one attempted to answer my question about how in SR the stationary system knows, or would know, where it is in relation to the earth, so that it does not crash or drift off into space - the question has some relevance to my stuff. Not to worry.

Yes, I don't know if GPS employs SR, or indeed if it has any application nowadays. I'll take a look at "Logical Debate of the Evidence", thanks.

On your comment about the broader nature of things, this is verged upon in the link, and I have my own philosophy system - which informs the stuff I'm linking to. And here is that same:
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/me ... 1153656350

There is a rather long introduction to it included. The whole piece is extracted from "Effectuationism (Sept.2009)"

[CCC]

It really focuses on making the point that any concept is a feature of a model, and that a model is informed by and expresses a premise.

Well, yes. That's a feature of models.

What it doesn't seem to tell us is what premises effectuationism uses.

ccc, Like I said in my last post I want to proceed in a particular order. I posted some questions and if I can get past that issue I would then proceed to the rudiments of a navigation system which I have formulated. Whether I then move further into Effectuationism is quite another matter.

Quite. How, and whether, you present it is entirely your choice.

I see no one attempted to answer my question about how in SR the stationary system knows, or would know, where it is in relation to the earth, so that it does not crash or drift off into space - the question has some relevance to my stuff. Not to worry.

I'd imagine that the designers just picked whichever inertial frame would be easiest to work with, and put the label "stationary" on it. SR allows one to do that.

On your comment about the broader nature of things, this is verged upon in the link, and I have my own philosophy system - which informs the stuff I'm linking to. And here is that same:
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/me ... 1153656350

There is a rather long introduction to it included. The whole piece is extracted from "Effectuationism (Sept.2009)"

I'll have to have a look...

[Peter]

I see no one attempted to answer my question about how in SR the stationary system knows, or would know, where it is in relation to the earth, so that it does not crash or drift off into space - the question has some relevance to my stuff. Not to worry.

I'd imagine that the designers just picked whichever inertial frame would be easiest to work with, and put the label "stationary" on it. SR allows one to do that.

PK: Hi CCC, The intended question was how the stationary frame knows where in its frame or co-ordinates the earth is. Or how the folks on earth operating it know where in relation to them that it is.

As you will see from the stuff I linked, this general issue is a weak point in my system - though it is probably just because I am not aware of, for example, what system NASA had in the early days of keeping track of satellites and how to keep them in the same plane if required. In any case, I expect it is a matter that could rather easily be designed.

[CCC]

I'd imagine that the designers just picked whichever inertial frame would be easiest to work with, and put the label "stationary" on it. SR allows one to do that.

PK: Hi CCC, The intended question was how the stationary frame knows where in its frame or co-ordinates the earth is. Or how the folks on earth operating it know where in relation to them that it is.

I don't think it matters. Just pick a point (probably the centre of the Earth), label it the origin, pick a unit of measurement, and that's it.

With respect to your linked page:

Einstein’s first and second paragraphs open:
“It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. [ ]
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.”
Rather confusingly, he seems to be making the observation of asymmetry a basis for his postulate that the laws (of physics) will be valid for all frames of reference; that they support the Principle of Relativity.

No. He's taking the fact that certain asymmetries have not been observed (despite the fact that Maxwell's electrodynamics, as understood at that time, appeared to suggest that there should be asymmetries) as a basis for his postulate. (Specifically, the MM experiment was an attempt to observe those asymmetries). It's a minor point, as you don't seem to draw any further conclusions from it, but I think an important one.

And what do you mean by "indefinite- -dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted"? It seems to be central to your ideas, I just don't see what you're trying to say there...

[Peter]

PK: Hi CCC, The intended question was how the stationary frame knows where in its frame or co-ordinates the earth is. Or how the folks on earth operating it know where in relation to them that it is.

I don't think it matters. Just pick a point (probably the centre of the Earth), label it the origin, pick a unit of measurement, and that's it.

PK: The satellite taken as stationary has to have some means of positioning other bodies, such as earth, thereby staying on course - in orbit. I was wondering about the physical devices needed to do so. I guess we can pass on it, for now.

With respect to your linked page:

Einstein’s first and second paragraphs open:
“It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. [ ]
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.”
Rather confusingly, he seems to be making the observation of asymmetry a basis for his postulate that the laws (of physics) will be valid for all frames of reference; that they support the Principle of Relativity.

No. He's taking the fact that certain asymmetries have not been observed (despite the fact that Maxwell's electrodynamics, as understood at that time, appeared to suggest that there should be asymmetries) as a basis for his postulate. (Specifically, the MM experiment was an attempt to observe those asymmetries). It's a minor point, as you don't seem to draw any further conclusions from it, but I think an important one.

And what do you mean by "indefinite- -dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted"? It seems to be central to your ideas, I just don't see what you're trying to say there...

Oh right, that explains what AE was on about there, thx.
At the risk of throwing the thread off the rails, you may not have seen this MG Extended MMX:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E

Regarding “Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship ‘of forces’, indefinite- -dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted”: As I said elsewhere, I do not subscribe to a space and time world of discrete objects; to a subject and object world. Rather the quote expresses one of my first principles. 'Forces', indefinite- -dynamic. (I presume that "multi-faceted" is clear enough. Likewise, "inferentially". In any case, better to leave those two (bracketed) terms for now and focus on one of the forms of “Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship ‘of forces’, indefinite- -dynamic").

[Gerard]

Gerard: I would be interested in hearing about the navigation system featured in your model. Unfortunately, I am not very knowledgable about GPS, or how (and if) it employs SR. There is an interesting discussion of it in a thread by Xuqut, in 'Logical Debate of the Evidence'. JammyTown and CCC have been theorizing about it, and Xuqut has his own model to explain it.

A frequenter of this site, named Raphael, has an interesting theory, which makes a lot of sense to me. According to his model, the entire material universe can be described as a variegated pressure gradient of 'Aether'. Hence, gravity, electromagnetism, et al. are intimately related and subtly unified (as your description of your system suggests). According to Raphael's description, the earth would act as a sort of provisional Absolute Reference Frame, because of the aether that is intimately connected to and entrained with it. On and near earth, therefore, the speed of light would be constant relative to this provisionally 'stationary' aether (and this would not be in conflict with MMX). This would mean, I suppose, that a GPS based upon SR would fit nicely into his theory (though I haven't seen him comment on GPS).

PK: Hi Gerard,

Sorry for the delay. It's in part due to not having this thread set-up for e-mail notification.

Ok, I'll provide a link to my model, further down.

I see no one attempted to answer my question about how in SR the stationary system knows, or would know, where it is in relation to the earth, so that it does not crash or drift off into space - the question has some relevance to my stuff. Not to worry.

Yes, I don't know if GPS employs SR, or indeed if it has any application nowadays. I'll take a look at "Logical Debate of the Evidence", thanks.

On your comment about the broader nature of things, this is verged upon in the link, and I have my own philosophy system - which informs the stuff I'm linking to. And here is that same:
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/me ... 1153656350

There is a rather long introduction to it included. The whole piece is extracted from "Effectuationism (Sept.2009)"

Gerard: Thanks, I'll give this a read!