Effectuationism Navigation Model

Peter Kinane

Effectuationism Navigation Model

http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/23/58.html?1125304474

The system opens as follows:

* Principles of the Effectuationism Navigation Model:

Galileo and Einstein: "The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial Frames". Unlike Relativism, which tries to be, for example, both the moving train and the stationary platform, Effectuationism does not feature reference frame jumping-about. Rather an option of frame of reference (FoR) effects. So, of course, the "Principle of Relativity" above does not feature - though it is somewhat supportive of the Effectuationist principle of choosing one option - nor the related Einstein principle that the speed of light is the same regardless of the speed of the frame (or observer) measuring it, nor, of course, the concept "space-time".


It is a matter of changing the frame of reference of the frame of reference, etc., at the philosophy level. Incoherent philosophy begets incoherent physics models. *

So, effectively I'm proposing a new navigation model based on an advanced philosophy system
http://www.effectuationism.com - in contrast to the Philosophy of the Relativity of Value with which Einstein worked.

Essentially the system is this:

* So, application of the Principles of the Effectuationism Navigation Model:
Through a frame of reference orbiting rocket (FoR-r) in relationship with the Earth, movement of the Earth effects. Through the FoR-r in relation to the Earth effect x,y and z-axes. FoR-r can also have eyes (rockets) at some remove from itself 'along its orbit'. The other rockets can have determinable co-ordinates based on the established axes. So, too, other loops of rockets can be provided. The rockets can look outwards as well as inwards. Thereby events inside and outside can be tracked as routes on the co-ordinate system. A rotation of the Earth at 'the equator' can be standard event speed (SES), when other moving bodies have been seen to move.

The conventional concepts of "Space" and "Independent Time" do not feature. *

So, effectively a loop of rockets, around the Earth, is set up thereby giving a co-ordinate system. (The positions of various rockets can be established in relation to the first rocket (FoR-r)). The body (a point on Earth) moves in this co-ordinate system, not in a straight line (along the x-axis) but rotates in the x and y co-ordinates. (Other loops of rockets can be established as required, in relation to the established co-ordinate system).

* Further developed:
Rocket in relationship with the Earth. Let both have speeds such that the Earth does not seem to move. Through this relationship of forces the rocket can be frame of reference (FoR-r); FoR-r is a co-ordinate system and Earth is a body in that system.

Now change the relationship of speeds such that the Earth is seen to rotate, with different features coming and going repeatedly. Any such feature inferentially would have a path in the co ordinates. For example, let it commence as x_0, y_0 and z_1. (It is directly (in front, or) at one's centre, but out a bit. Presumably there is not a problem in determining (and retaining) the distance of the Earth from FoR-r and the other rockets). The z value is continuous, but the body moves in the other two co-ordinates, let's say, coming from East to West; from +x to -x. Simultaneous to its movement into -x co-ordinates it moves into +y co-ordinates, then progressing to its maximum in -x and medium in +y and on to x_0 and to maximum in +y, then on to maximum in +x as it decreases to its medium in +y, and then on to x_0 and y_0 again. *
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/23/58.html?1125304474

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Spear

Isn't this the same crank nonsense that you linked to before? Don't tell me you're actually claiming to be responsible for this nonsense?

Son Goku

How might effectuationism explain invariance under accelerative transformation?

Peter Kinane

Son Goku wrote:

How might effectuationism explain invariance under accelerative transformation?

How do you explain your understanding of the term "model" ("Effectuationism Navigation Model
")? (People in this and the philosophy forum seem rather unacquainted with the concept, although I have elaborated on it at length).

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Spear

Peter Kinane wrote:

How do you explain your understanding of the term "model" ("Effectuationism Navigation Model
")? (People in this and the philosophy forum seem rather unacquainted with the concept, although I have elaborated on it at length).

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Why are you dodging the question?

And this isn't a philosophy forum, this is the physics section, so you can't prevaricate, obfuscate or string random words together.

Peter Kinane

Son Goku wrote:

How might effectuationism explain invariance under accelerative transformation?

Peter Kinane wrote:

How do you explain your understanding of the term "model" ("Effectuationism Navigation Model")?

As you were not too full of crap to ask a question, I'll outline my 'game plan':

You are trapped in a model, some of whose features do not make sense to you. I am presenting an alternative, more advanced, model. When/If you conceptualise this model you will then be able - through the two coming into relationship - to see the nonsense- -backwardness of your current model, and thereby you will understand it. (In effect this is the second principle of Effectuationism in operation: "Effect, through relationship 'of forces').

You will feel like a human being rather than a (programmed) robot. So, don't run away, as the moderator of the philosophy forum seemed to do. Those guys have had a circular posture for 2,400 years - and you know what that does to spine - whereas, for your lot it has only been one hundred years - right?


For advanced, happy, peaceful days to effect, you gotta know advanced models from rather primal ones.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Spear

Peter Kinane wrote:

You are trapped in a model, some of whose features do not make sense to you. I am presenting an alternative, more advanced, model. When/If you conceptualise this model you will then be able - through the two coming into relationship - to see the nonsense- -backwardness of your current model, and thereby you will understand it. (In effect this is the second principle of Effectuationism in operation: "Effect, through relationship 'of forces').

You will feel like a human being rather than a (programmed) robot. So, don't run away, as the moderator of the philosophy forum seemed to do. Those guys have had a circular posture for 2,400 years - and you know what that does to spine - whereas, for your lot it has only been one hundred years - right?


For advanced, happy, peaceful days to effect, you gotta know advanced models from rather primal ones.

Peter Kinane

Your model is incoherent trash, openly contradicted by emperical evidence. It's pretty clear you have zero knowledge of maths or physics, or even just the scientific method. I don't know what you're attempting to achieve by spamming this crap here, but no-one's going to pay it any attention.


Nesf: if you could lock this, as there's nothing to be gained from this.

simu

Peter Kinane wrote:

. So, don't run away, as the moderator of the philosophy forum seemed to do.

Run away? You failed to convince anyone your website consisted of more than cloudy, derivative ideas and strings of impressive-sounding but ultimately vague to the point of meaningless words tbh.

Sarky

Can the Effectuationism Navigation Model be applied to explain precisely why I like cake so much?

nesf

Just because you seem to have trouble with recognising moderators: I'm the moderator of this forum.

If you want to propose a model, present the basic mathematical assumptions and then provide us with a mathematical model in full and then produce any empricial evidence upon which you have based your model or that supports your model.

Presenting one in English is not acceptable in this forum, nor is presenting one based on conjecture that is not founded in unexplained evidence that contradicts a present model.

Otherwise this thread gets locked and you get banned from here. It's very simple really.

Claims about "maths not being sufficient" or that your model "transcends the needs for math" will not be entertained. English is a far less precise language than mathematics, if you are unable to express it mathematically then you should not call it physics.

simu

Sarky wrote:

Can the Effectuationism Navigation Model be applied to explain precisely why I like cake so much?

If that were possible, I would certainly be far more impressed than I have been up to now!

Peter Kinane

Moderator,

Re * Just because you seem to have trouble with recognising moderators: I'm the moderator of this forum. *

I believe you are mistaken. Perhaps - 'radical idea' - you would provide quote (and address) of my stating or implying that you are not the moderator of this forum?

Re * If you want to propose a model, present the basic mathematical assumptions and then provide us with a mathematical model in full and then produce any empirical evidence upon which you have based your model or that supports your model. *

I was hoping that your forum would have at least one or two members capable of and disposed to apply a little - just a little - imagination to some concepts, but this may very well be over optimistic. If I was addressing my cat I might feel compelled to rely on "empirical evidence" to impress it.

Re *Presenting one in English is not acceptable in this forum, nor is presenting one based on conjecture that is not founded in unexplained evidence that contradicts a present model. *

I am attempting to provide the evidence- -logic that is _an alternative_ to the present model. It would help if one or two of the members were a little open-minded, and intellectually advanced beyond the infantile love of empirical evidence.

I suppose I'd better explain the term "infantile": Babies are born pretty much as reflexive organisms. The then develop, as infants, to a sense of categorical this and categorical that. Some advance and see value as relative - the stage of development with which Einstein worked. Some advance further to "Value, through relationship 'of forces'. (Note, for possible future reference: I sometimes refer to the infantile (stage) as "primal").


Re * Otherwise this thread gets locked and you get banned from here. It's very simple really. *

I don't doubt that you like simplicity.

Re * Claims about "maths not being sufficient" or that your model "transcends the needs for math" will not be entertained. English is a far less precise language than mathematics, if you are unable to express it mathematically then you should not call it physics. *

I see mathematics as an extension of language, not an alternative language.

So, if this forum wants to address Effectuationist principles of logic, speak up now or risk forever existing at the level of those who are uncomfortable with the higher human faculties. Such 'people' have a vested interest, of course, in locking this thread.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Peter Kinane

What type of cake?

Sarky

Schroedinger's Kittencake, obviously. Sheesh, what kind of physicist ARE you?

Peter Kinane

* Run away? You failed to convince anyone your website consisted of more than cloudy, derivative ideas and strings of impressive-sounding but ultimately vague to the point of meaningless words tbh. *

Well, perhaps progress can yet be made.

Spear

Peter Kinane wrote:

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

I think he's only lacking the conspiracy accusations so far.

As for the thorny issue of the cake problem, start at a special case, then expand to the general case. That seems to have worked in other cases.

nesf

Infantile love of empirical evidence?

rofl.

I think that should be rephrased as your infantile desire to dismiss reality in favour of what you'd like the world to be.


If you wish to dismiss our present models you need to be able to show grounds upon which you dismiss them. The foundation of the scientific method is that models correspond to empirical evidence, or more simply put, our observations of reality.

It is not suffice to simply state that something is wrong or incorrect, you must show it to be so.

Also, your "model" needs refinement. It does not present any coherent predictions or assumptions on which it is formed. Without such, it is no better than fiction.

Peter Kinane

Re * If you wish to dismiss our present models you need to be able to show grounds upon which you dismiss them. The foundation of the scientific method is that models correspond to empirical evidence, or more simply put, our observations of reality. *

I am here to present alternative models. Can we please get on with it; now that people seem to be opening their mind somewhat to the definition of a "model", can we please return to my opening post and have some reactions to it?

"The foundation of the scientific method" expresses premises. These premises determine the model - including, in the case of your model, the infantile notion "that models correspond to empirical evidence". Do please try to open your mind to this.

Re * It is not suffice to simply state that something is wrong or incorrect, you must show it to be so. *

Please return to my opening post and let's have some reactions to it.


Re * Also, your "model" needs refinement. It does not present any coherent predictions or assumptions on which it is formed. Without such, it is no better than fiction. *

It does provide principles upon which it is formed, here:
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/23/58.html?1125304474

** Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces, and inferentially multifaceted.

With further development: Indefinite and dynamic Man/Person- -Ground in tension with moving animal/object - Time- -Being.

Moving Object/Animal in relationship with FoR (Man/Person- -Ground) is an event, with readily determined x,y,z co-ordinates and the standard rate of event (RE) (or standard event speed (SES)) the t dimension.



Emphasis: I expect that people are unaccustomed to employing, perhaps even thinking of, a clock as an SES. **

However, this is philosophy and I would prefer, as we are more likely to make progress, if this forum first addresses the physics in the opening of the thread.


People around here have now had two weeks to deal with the shock of the suggestion that there is a radically new, formidable coherent system being presented. Let's move on.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

nesf

Peter Kinane wrote:

People around here have now had two weeks to deal with the shock of the suggestion that there is a radically new, formidable coherent system being presented. Let's move on.

No it's not shock. It's a slowly growing lack of patience with regard to you and your posts. There are people here who have not only studied physics, but who have published papers and undertook original research. We have faced, and in some cases, created "new physics". Your language and points are not formidable nor are they coherent. The system you present seems to in no way correspond to the real world, in fact your denial that empirical evidence means anything to it would suggest that it is never meant to.

In fact, I seriously doubt you even understand what physics is. None of your posts so far have lead me to believe otherwise. Your emphatic dismissal of evidence is puzzling. Physics is based on empirical evidence and very little else. Our models seek to explain and predict this, they do not superceed it.

Without evidence and reference to it, we are left with philosophy not science.


What you suggest is not science and is natural philosophy. I sincerly doubt it's relevance to science and as such am planning on closing this thread to put this pointless argument to an end.

I call it pointless since you do not seem to wish to be scientific but philosophical. That has no place here. If you want to overturn a physical model, or provide an alternate model to it, you must be prepared to both obey and respect the scientific method.

I will lock this post tomorrow night if you do not sufficiently convince me and the others in this forum of the relevance of this theory. And please do not arrogantly speak of us not grasping your models and theories, it is you who seems to have difficulty grasping both science and the concepts involved within it.

fortysixand2

Peter Kinane wrote:

Re * Claims about "maths not being sufficient" or that your model "transcends the needs for math" will not be entertained. English is a far less precise language than mathematics, if you are unable to express it mathematically then you should not call it physics. *

I see mathematics as an extension of language, not an alternative language.

Ye gods man. How can you say something like that? ESPECIALLY about an imprecise, unwieldy and mongrel language like English? It's my favourite thing about the language from my perspective as an artist but from my perspective as a scientist English is ridiculous for use in expressing precise and detailed concepts such as this "model" you're trying to get across. Without mathematical backup you are not even presenting a "model", you're presenting a nice little pretty picture that, while you might be proud of it, means nothing in concrete physical and DEMONSTRABLE terms.

Peter Kinane

* No it's not shock. It's a slowly growing lack of patience with regard to you and your posts. There are people here who have not only studied physics, but who have published papers and undertook original research. We have faced, and in some cases, created "new physics". Your language and points are not formidable nor are they coherent. The system you present seems to in no way correspond to the real world, in fact your denial that empirical evidence means anything to it would suggest that it is never meant to.

In fact, I seriously doubt you even understand what physics is. None of your posts so far have lead me to believe otherwise. Your emphatic dismissal of evidence is puzzling. Physics is based on empirical evidence and very little else. Our models seek to explain and predict this, they do not superceed it.

Without evidence and reference to it, we are left with philosophy not science.


What you suggest is not science and is natural philosophy. I sincerly doubt it's relevance to science and as such am planning on closing this thread to put this pointless argument to an end.

I call it pointless since you do not seem to wish to be scientific but philosophical. That has no place here. If you want to overturn a physical model, or provide an alternate model to it, you must be prepared to both obey and respect the scientific method.

I will lock this post tomorrow night if you do not sufficiently convince me and the others in this forum of the relevance of this theory. And please do not arrogantly speak of us not grasping your models and theories, it is you who seems to have difficulty grasping both science and the concepts involved within it. *

We differ on whether I am arrogant or you are closed-minded. All of your above post blissfully neglects that "My [ model's] 'three' criteria of the rigour of value are coherence, coherence and coherence". The idea - 'radical idea' - is to conceptualise the model first, then to weight it (through it coming into relationship with other models, in accordance with whatever criteria one fancies) and perhaps then to express serious doubts, if any. Such coherence implies coherence of all data, not just bits and pieces. For example, it does not exclude what is called "empirical evidence". However, it does not make a god of "empirical evidence". Indeed, one does not have to be very smart to realise that definition of your concept "the real world" is a live issue in conventional philosophy.

Indeed you may be correct that "Physics is based on empirical evidence and very little else". This, to me, explains why it is counter-intuitive - and tends to turn people into robotic morons. You say "Our models seek to explain [] it". Good, so does mine, and I haven't been trying for one hundred years yet - I've just been trying to explain my explanation 'here' for just two weeks.

Progress does require that at least one or two members get over the popular love affair with "empirical evidence" in the infantile understanding of it. Much the same goes for your "respect" for the counter-intuitive "scientific method".

It is necessary that people present with much more deeply open mind than seems to be the case, if the thread is to make progress. Not everyone is up to such openness.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Peter Kinane

* Ye gods man. How can you say something like that? ESPECIALLY about an imprecise, unwieldy and mongrel language like English? It's my favourite thing about the language from my perspective as an artist but from my perspective as a scientist English is ridiculous for use in expressing precise and detailed concepts such as this "model" you're trying to get across. Without mathematical backup you are not even presenting a "model", you're presenting a nice little pretty picture that, while you might be proud of it, means nothing in concrete physical and DEMONSTRABLE terms. *

DO elaborate on your understanding of the model I am trying to get across, so that I can appreciate the weight of your "perspective as a scientist [that] English is ridiculous for" it?

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Spear

Peter Kinane wrote:

DO elaborate on your understanding of the model I am trying to get across, so that I can appreciate the weight of your "perspective as a scientist [that] English is ridiculous for" it?

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

English is a ridiculous choice as the universe isn't described by English, it's described by maths. And since your "model" doesn't have any mathematical basis or factual basis, you're left with nothing except incoherent English.

ApeXaviour

While I understand all of the words this man has written, both here and on his website, and indeed many of the sentances. When all bundled together they become quite meaningless. He fails to present.. anything really. I've yet to find an equation I can wrap my mind around meaningfully, or any equation for that matter. It's really a rant about nothing. Much like timecube guy "Dr." Gene Ray: http://www.timecube.com/ (definitely worth a look).
So after going over the evidence presented from both contributors, a single fundamental question remains:

Who would win in a fight?
"Dr." Gene Ray
or
Peter Kinane

My money would be on timecube guy tbh.. I reckon he'd have the psychological edge tbh.

Sarky

That's all very well, but what about my cake?

Peter Kinane

* That's all very well, but what about my cake? *

Oh, I beg your pardon for not getting back to you.

* Can the Effectuationism Navigation Model be applied to explain precisely why I like Schroedinger's Kittencake so much? *

The effect, precisely why you like Schroedinger's Kittencake so much, like all effects, according to Effectuationism, effects through, and indeed as, a relationship 'of forces'. Now, and you want to know "precisely", this starts, of course, with the first principle of the system. This principle is only for those who are advanced in philosophy, so it is not appropriate to this forum, your good self and perhaps one or two others excepted, of course. So, moving along quickly to the second principle: "Effect, through, and indeed as, a relationship 'of forces'".

Any questions so far?

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Sarky

Yes.

Why couldn't you just have said "Because cake is nice" ?

Peter Kinane

You think that would answer your question "explain precisely why I like Schroedinger's Kittencake so much?". Actually it does make some sense in the given context of these forums.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

nesf

*shrugs*

As I promised, locked.