She: “When will the train come?”
He: “When the dog will bark!”
She again: “When will the dog bark?”
He then: “When the train is coming!”
Second try:
She: “What time will the train come?”
He: “That time the dog will bark!”
She again: “What time will the dog bark?”
He then: “That time the train is coming!”
Third try (more scientifically):
She: “How long will it take until the train arrives?”
He: “That amount of time it takes until the dog will bark!”
She again: “How long will it take until the dog barks?”
He then: “That amount of time it takes until the train will arrive!”
Fourth try (even more scientifically):
She: “How many units will pass on my clock until the train is coming?”
He: “That depends on the amount of time your clock will rate until the dog will bark!”
She again (wrathful): “What is the amount of time my clock will rate until the dog will bark?”
He then (subtly): “That amount of time it takes until the train will arrive!”
Last try (using latest scientific spelling):
She: “Do you know the duration until the train is coming?”
He: “That depends on the notion of ‘duration’!”
She again (wrathful): “‘duration’ is the number of units counted by my clock, don’t you know that?”
He then (subtly): “Yes, I do know!”
Poster Einsteins definition of a clock's display
Data OtherNameForTrap
Obviously, as the dialogues exemplifies there might exist some predisposition -according to their fundamental attitudes- to misunderstand one another.
In such situations there cannot be established any scientific dialogue because by using languages there is always given a chance for misinterpretation.
The most interesting fact about language is that we already signal to apply common conception just when using a common language. The ambiguity of words however allows the communicating people to hide their perceptions, arguments and knowledge behind a wall of void pictures, blurred models and buzz words.
In order to establish fruitful dialogues Paul Lorenzen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lorenzen) proposed to use a more formal language with precise reference (to common concepts). This is quite the same approach as that what we are used to in data modelling and semantic web. But Lorenzen’s approach did provide more than that: He detailed a formal technique to depict common conception and to guide the language such that the meaning of the concepts may not be diluted or subverted. By agreement a equivalence relation is assumed to give the base of meaning for concepts.
Any reference to some object which is assigned to be (an element of the extension of such) a concept (like ‘a human to be teacher’, ‘a sequence of digits to be a number’, ‘a heap of metal to be a car’) has to fulfill the base of meaning, i.e. the proposition P: “x is-a teacher” is true only if [and now listen!] the acceptance of the truth of P [as part of our common knowledge base] leaves the set of all true propositions of all (!) propositions like ‘y is-a teacher’ untouched [No side effects at all!].
To condense this clause:
We presume that ‘a motor-driven tricycle is-a car’ would not change the [known until that] all-set P about cars!
- Does it harm or would it change the set of given propositions about cars if we would accept that new predication as true?
- Yes, it could harm in the following [equivalent] cases:
Assume that the equivalence relation which states two vehicles [c1~c2] to be equivalent [by using the term ‘car’] is given as:”c1~c2, if c1 and c2 use the same number of wheels on ground.”
To avoid side effects [of extending the amount of objects] to be ‘is-a’ [of some term] is not the core idea when dealing with equivalence relations at the basic elements of meaning. It is merely the idea of preserving the consistency of all propositions simply by homogeneity, such that one may assert that all propositions were given by using the same meaning.
This is a pretty simple and a quite good idea!
To catch an answer to the question: “When will the train come?” we need at least
Im Deutschen ganz einfach:
- „Zeige mir die Positionen der Zeiger,
die meine Uhr anzeigen wird,
wenn der Zug kommt!“
In English this is quite more ambiguous:
- “Show me the positions of the hands
that my clock will show
when the train will arrive!”
- “Give the time value
my clock will indicate
when the train will arrive!”
Dear Gregor,
you dived into a problem, but there is no water in the pool.
On the thread "A simple definition of Time" you stated: "Time is that one thing you cannot change."
My reply from today applies here as well:
On http://www.wissenswissenschaft.de/ you will find,
• Science creates knowledge • Wissenschaft schafft Wissen
Vers 0.1.0 - 26.09.2016
a good start. And - furthermore:
• All processes of the becoming have an accomplishing structure
--
• Alle Prozesse des Werdens haben eine erfolgsichernde Struktur
Fundamental knowledge for creating scientifical knowledge.
Knowledge has a function, a WHY, a what it is to be used for.
There are four! different functions of knowledge, one of which
is that knowledge, we use modelling the becoming (das Werden).
We have to find out, how we can model. Of course, we have to
agree on what and on how we use it. And:
Any question, any article in a newspaper, anything needs a why.
Otherwise one cannot answer to what the asking person wanted to know.
(That's why it is "dangerous" to answer to the police.
Asking, why do you ask, seems unpolite. But never mind. It could save you from prison, ...)
We have to find out, we created knowledge in the past.
It is incubated. We are using it unconsciously, naturally.
Until the police, your wife, ... "interprets", what you said in a different way.
You may call it "misunderstanding". But sometimes it's more than that, e.g. prison, divorce, ...
WE have to give science a fresh start.
It's more then WEB 3.0 or 99.0 or ...
Mankind has to start from scratch.
As you can see by the discussion "A simple definition of Time".
Just think about this title!:
Nobody knows the notion/concept of
"definition" or "notion" or "concept" or "meaning" or ... "time", "space", ...
We have to put up a task force.
The physicists will defend their "everything", especially Einstein.
The philosophers too, especially their "Kant".
Hans-Josef Heck at http://www.wissenswissenschaft.de/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science