New definition of mass

[Tiassa]

Wait a minute! You just said planets have been orbiting the sun. But now you're saying that the "number of planets" has been orbiting the sun. What does the orbiting - the planets or the numbers? Can we see the orbiting numbers if we have a powerful enough telescope?

That's some great reading comprehension there, from the educator↗.

So, yeah, as people start to complain because Arf told you off profanely, I will simply remind that nobody is going to flag you for your misrepresentation and abusive behavior.

I mean, sure, it's one thing if Arf is failing to distinguish between space and what fills it, but I don't see why any of his errors require your misrepresentation.

That's the thing, James. Go back to #3↑, for a moment, and ask yourself what was the purpose of the rhetorical sleight; the question isn't the unit of measurement, or even the concept of length, but what the bacterium actually is. Or, per the topic, it's not the unit of measurement by which we describe mass that comes into question, but the fundamental nature of the mass itself. In #8↑, your operational definition is, well, an operational definition, but in its way it is also a change of subject. And it's one thing to brush away someone's prediction, but you did eventually fulfill it, see #29↑.

And whatever else our neighbor is doing wrong, James, it remains true that I just don't get your need for perpetual provocation; if this is the way it goes, then we might as well just skip the whole mess of it and flag Arf for opening the thread in the first place. It's not too much to ask that he proffer even the slightest whiff of a thesis, but dragging it out by bullshitting him is explicitly not useful.

 

[arfa brane]

A computer object is not a physical object.

Computers are physical.
A data object such as an array of numbers has a physical state in a physical computer.

If I want to describe the physical world, model it with a computer program, there will need to be correspondences between physical data structures (objects) in the program and physical objects in the real world.
In much the same way there are correspondences between the real physical world and the model of it inside your head.

What if the computer program is a model of gravitational collapse of a star? The computer model is a) not the real thing, but is a real model and b) is an approximation of the real thing.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Yes, I think arfa is deliberately choosing to conflate the metaphors of programming-speak with terms used to describe the physical world, to try to wriggle out of an untenable position.

It does seem highly unlikely that anyone would actually be unable to distinguish between concepts and things made of matter. Hopefully this is just him refusing to do so, on principle. The alternative is worse.

 

[billvon]

Computers are physical.
A data object such as an array of numbers has a physical state in a physical computer.

Nope. It's a data construct. The computer is the same whether it supports a data object or not. Nothing physical is added when the data object is added; nothing physical is removed when it is removed.

If I want to describe the physical world, model it with a computer program, there will need to be correspondences between physical data structures (objects) in the program and physical objects in the real world.

Absolutely! A map corresponds to the actual land it represents. That does not denote equality; it is merely a representation of the actual land.

However that doesn't support your "data object" claim. Object oriented programming does not represent - nor does it purport to represent - actual physical objects. Instead, the term "object" is an abstraction to represent discrete structures of data.

In much the same way there are correspondences between the real physical world and the model of it inside your head.

Also agreed. But if you drop a real hammer on your foot you may be injured, because it's a real object. Imagining the same thing will not harm you, since it's not a real object. It is certainly useful to model that behavior in your brain, because by realizing in the abstract that it will hurt, you avoid that action in the real world.

 

[Write4U]

And the new definition of mass is..........?

 

[arfa brane]

Nope. It's a data construct.

?? Is that another name for a data object? Or are you just being picky?

The computer is the same whether it supports a data object or not.

I don't follow that. The computer is a computer when you switch it off, but, so what?

Nothing physical is added when the data object is added; nothing physical is removed when it is removed.

Ah. I see. What you say is, whatever physical registers exist in a computer, nothing is added if I say the register contains a number, or an address of a number or of an instruction.
But a data object is meant to be changed or read or written by instructions; it doesn't pay to get them confused, so data typing is sort of a requirement in computers, ones that get switched on and run programs, in particular. What kind of object is a program when it isn't running, and then when it is? Are they different objects?

Object oriented programming does not represent - nor does it purport to represent - actual physical objects.

Sorry but, yes it does purport that. Very much so. OOA purports that it can represent any real world object. Including a person who will "operate" the software.

 

[arfa brane]

As for having an untenable position: it seems that my disagreement with James is the untenable position. exchemist as usual prefers to suck up to James even when James is proclaiming all kinds of unsupportable, even infantile rubbish.

James knows what things are in physics. It doesn't make any difference to the James TOE that even Einstein didn't say he knew what mass is, or what energy is. What he did say, definitively is that mass and energy are related--closely related. But he didn't try to say (that he knew) what mass or energy are; that's something he left to philosophers and they still can't really say.

But here at sciforums we have James the Magnificent; we're so fortunate having the Wisdom of James to keep us all safe from crazy ideas.

 

[origin]

But here at sciforums we have James the Magnificent; we're so fortunate having the Wisdom of James to keep us all safe from crazy ideas.

Well for me the I feel the discussions about energy (even before this particular thread) has given me a much deeper understanding of energy and the properties of an object in general. I thank James for initiating that understanding, but I think "James the Magnificent" is a bit over the top.

 

[exchemist]

Well for me the I feel the discussions about energy (even before this particular thread) has given me a much deeper understanding of energy and the properties of an object in general. I thank James for initiating that understanding, but I think "James the Magnificent" is a bit over the top.

The question is whether he would be James the Greater or James the Lesser.

 

[Tiassa]

It doesn't make any difference to the James TOE that even Einstein didn't say he knew what mass is, or what energy is. What he did say, definitively is that mass and energy are related--closely related. But he didn't try to say (that he knew) what mass or energy are; that's something he left to philosophers and they still can't really say.

But this looks more like it's about James than the physics, and that's a losing prospect, and not just for you.

Consider two basic descriptions: One, Arf is going crackpot. Two, Arf is out in the potsherds. While there are reasons for the latter that do not require the former, your position is largely unclear, at this point, and it seems James R is not capable of recognizing such distinctions. At some point, Arf, you need to recognize the discursive reality of this environment. Like I told him some weeks ago↗, if you're totally off your rocker from the outset, you certainly aren't going to say so, and he is not able to. But the part you can tell us, and he still isn't able to, is what all this is for.

A basic progression, and its historical mystery:

1) Arf says [A].

2) James disagrees with [B].

3) Arf disputes and disdains fallacy [B].

4) James insists on [B], apparently because he thinks his fallacy [B] licenses condescension and denigration.

5) Arf eventually tells James to fuck off.

6) Rinse, repeat.​

We're downstream far enough that you're now calling him out at the outset. The obvious advice, there, is to stop doing that.

So, let's rewind to [A], for a moment. This aspect of James' discursive method is well familiar to me, and while it is actually laden with its own mysteries, one nearly reliable aspect has to do with how focus on [B] continues to move discussion away from [A].

There was somewhere you were going with [A] that is not where James says it is, and is not where other critics expect you are going: Where were you going with what idea?

Also, does the topic article and what it discusses actually have anything to do with [A], or is it just about having your say toward [B]?

In the event of the latter, the obvious advice is to stop doing that. You already know how this goes. Not only is it generally considered inappropriate to be so direct, you've been around long enough to know that he tends to take being called out so directly as license to behave as he does.

As a subject of general interest, maybe try the topic post again; uncertainty is a fascinating question, and sometimes the difference between crackpottery and innovation is whether one thinks they have discovered some useful thing in itself, or recognizes something about the uncertainty shaping a bauble that describes an outcome.

This thread will be closed according to the personalized nature of the topic post, but I have told James what I think of his behavior in this thread at least twice, now, so he will be welcome to reopen it in order to respond.

And I'll put on my green hat for that, sure, but the reason this part is in black ink is to help remind you that in any push coming to shove, no, I cannot compel him to stop making things worse.

Meanwhile, it doesn't help you or anyone else to be so direct.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Closure

As observed, James R can respond if he so chooses, but beyond that, this one is over.

The general principle at note, here, is the idea of perssonalized threads targeting another user. It should be enough to just do our thing and wait for the inevitable turn. There is no need to go out of our way to invite such specific disputes.

 

[James R]

Closing this thread is fair decision. We were getting nowhere useful with arfa brane, and I'm confident everybody else in the thread is able to distinguish between objects and concepts. Beside, arfa was having difficulty posting without adding insults and foul language to his posts, to the extent where, sooner or later, moderation would probably become necessary. I have consciously taken a light hand as far as moderation goes in this thread, to avoid any perception of conflict of interest, as usual. If arfa had been dishing out his insults and language to another poster, I might well have moderated him.

I would like to note that our whole object/concept discussion is off topic for this thread. The thread got off track because arfa brane insists on following me around the forum to try to continue or rehash an old argument we had about whether energy is a number. Apparently, arfa has now progressed to the point where he is unwilling to admit to any distinction at all between physical objects and mental concepts, thus broadening his argumentative sphere of untenability. I'd like to think that this is his ego getting in the way, rather than his being actually unable to make simple distinctions that most people in the world manage with negligible effort, but anything is possible.

I freely admit to going hard on poor little arfa in this thread. If you, Tiassa, feel that is abuse on my part, I guess your assumption must be that poor little arfa can't stand up for himself against the force of my arguments, or something like that, and therefore needs to be treated with kid gloves. One relevant fact here is that, despite my offer to withdraw from our discussion of this particular topic (provided arfa also withdrew), arfa kept lining up for more, and he kept digging the hole he made for himself. Meanwhile, he couldn't manage to keep his anger in check, so he lashed out with insults, profanity and other behaviours that reflect rather poorly on him.

I would suggest that, if arfa is unable to conduct himself as a reasonable adult in conversation with intelligent adults, he might be best off avoiding such conversations. If he needs coddling or protection from nasty old moderators like me, it might be best if he doesn't follow me around crying for my attention in future. As a moderator, I will, of course, endeavour to treat any official complains he makes about other posters impartially.

I am aware that most people do not get to add something after a thread is closed by a moderator, like I have here. In the interests of fairness, I am happy to also allow arfa brane one final post here, if he wants it. (Send me the text in a private message. I will post it verbatim, as long as it follows our site posting guidelines. If you prefer, you can send it to a different moderator.)