Quote:
Originally Posted by beppe
The point is my statement of the factual impossibility of representing reality
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...2&postcount=60
to which it followed a passionated reply by Florence
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...0&postcount=64
and an other, apparently more challenging by WTS https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...164#post950164
My post is applicable only to an apple, that particular apple, falling.
And my conclusion is that the actual falling of that particular apple escapes an accurate description.
If you compare the observations on the falling of that apple with the one computed with the theory, you only learn something about the limits of the theory. (mind you, nobody expressed the theory, just vaguely invoked it, except me who said apples fall downward). If you care, follow the chain of the posts. |
When you talk about impossibility of representing reality you need to specify if you mean in principle or in practice. I do not see at all why it is impossible in principle to represent reality to any chosen accuracy.
It was pointed out the Newtons laws are approximate correct so event if the input data is totally accurate the result will not be totally accurate. So therefore I did not get why adding inaccurate input data changed anything from what was said in the text you quoted.