7 ms·

》epicycles were still not enough to describe what could be observed. Epicycles based models were far superior in practice, such as predicting planetary conjunc

》epicycles were still not enough to describe what could be observed. Epicycles based models were far superior in practice, such as predicting planetary conjunctions. Heliocentric models did not really catched up, until Newton invented gravity and calculus. And centre of mass of solar system (barycenter in Newtonian physics), is outside of Sun, so heliocentric models technically never gave solid predictions! Stellar parallax (main prediction from Copernicus theory) was not confirmed until 19th century! Heliocentrism is mainly philosophical concept! I will stick with my primitive old thinking and biases, thank you! If I get mugged a few times in a neighbourhood, I will assume it is not safe. There is no need to overthink it!

croes 4y ago
Invented gravity?
- smegsicle 4y ago
  gravity is a notation for describing and predicting an arbitrary subset of natural processes you might as well contest that he invented calculus
  - gweinberg 4y ago
    As opposed to discovered it? I think most people would say he discovered calculus rather than invented it.
- dataflow 4y ago
  They probably mean invented gravity as a formal concept, not as a physical phenomenon. Like, say, the invention of the number 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0
  - deckeraa 4y ago
    Agreed. Prior to Newton's conception of gravity as objects attracting one another, the primary model used was the Aristotelian one, in which things tended to go to the "zone" where they belong. Things composed of earth (like a rock) tended to sink towards the center of the earth, while things composed of fire or air tended to rise towards the sky.
- throw93232 4y ago
  English is not my native language obviously.
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    Not at all obvious, you did fine.
- jameshart 4y ago
  Turns out, yes. Gravity - some mystical force that attracts masses together - turns out to be a completely fictional thing. Mass curves spacetime, objects actually move in straight lines, and the fact you can explain the results of that as an 'attractive force' turns out to just be a convenient invention. The idea of summing how all that works in terms of a simple inverse square force is just an ingenious human observation and invention.
zwkrt 4y ago
I would normally be skeptical of an article that starts with a description of epicycles because it probably means that whatever is going to be described next is totally bullshit. In this case I’m not so sure. As a plebeian normie, it seems like the “rational actor” model of economics has a lot of problems. Now I do believe that All people are All of the time trying to achieve their goals and meet their needs as can best be achieved in the given situation and in the way that they best know how. But this includes a junkie digging through trash for things to sell, a housewife poisoning her abusive husband, and a schizophrenic blowing up mailboxes to stop an international plot against her. It includes a recent widower staying in bed for two weeks. It certainly includes your exclusion of an entire neighborhood and its thousands of inhabitants from your care due to some harrowing experiences. As I understand it, most economists, and certainly the ones that influence policy, are not really thinking of these things as “rational”. To them rational means “increasing your own wealth or exchanging your money in the most efficient and expedient way possible”. And that’s very good because this is the way that corporations and rich people that hire people to manage their money effectively operate. But it doesn’t really work for normal people in normal situations. Our lack of information about our surroundings and our incredibly wide array of emotional states doesnt leave a lot of room for rationality. I won’t really expound on it because this is already so long, but having a single definition of rationality also excludes any possibility of having an informed multicultural viewpoint.
- throw93232 4y ago
  People are rational, model works. But you can not approximate complex system like human brain with couple of variables. There are not hundreds, but millions of biases. Advanced epicycle models had dozens moving parts. JPL planetary ephemerides (modern equivalent in polynomials) have several millions of parameters and terabytes of equations.
- m4nu3l 4y ago
  The real question for me is, do you think that a Government is different or in a better position than corporations or people operating in the market in making economic decision for an entire country? I believe it isn't. Actually I think it's in a much worse position for the following reasons: 1) A Government is made of people (usually elected directly or indirectly by the majority based on feelings and all the same irrationality), which in turn will likely be "irrational", or have the wrong incentives (be elected again). 2) A Government is made of few people compared to all the people that there are in the Country. They can't possibly know about all the details of the economy and the situations people are in or they can't process it. 3) Government policies can affect the entire economy. An error there can have bigger repercussions than, for instance, a company making a mistake.
bergenty 4y ago
How do you do the double >>

croes 4y ago

Invented gravity?

smegsicle 4y ago
gravity is a notation for describing and predicting an arbitrary subset of natural processes you might as well contest that he invented calculus
- gweinberg 4y ago
  As opposed to discovered it? I think most people would say he discovered calculus rather than invented it.
dataflow 4y ago
They probably mean invented gravity as a formal concept, not as a physical phenomenon. Like, say, the invention of the number 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0
- deckeraa 4y ago
  Agreed. Prior to Newton's conception of gravity as objects attracting one another, the primary model used was the Aristotelian one, in which things tended to go to the "zone" where they belong. Things composed of earth (like a rock) tended to sink towards the center of the earth, while things composed of fire or air tended to rise towards the sky.
throw93232 4y ago
English is not my native language obviously.
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  Not at all obvious, you did fine.
jameshart 4y ago
Turns out, yes. Gravity - some mystical force that attracts masses together - turns out to be a completely fictional thing. Mass curves spacetime, objects actually move in straight lines, and the fact you can explain the results of that as an 'attractive force' turns out to just be a convenient invention. The idea of summing how all that works in terms of a simple inverse square force is just an ingenious human observation and invention.

zwkrt 4y ago

I would normally be skeptical of an article that starts with a description of epicycles because it probably means that whatever is going to be described next is totally bullshit. In this case I’m not so sure. As a plebeian normie, it seems like the “rational actor” model of economics has a lot of problems. Now I do believe that All people are All of the time trying to achieve their goals and meet their needs as can best be achieved in the given situation and in the way that they best know how. But this includes a junkie digging through trash for things to sell, a housewife poisoning her abusive husband, and a schizophrenic blowing up mailboxes to stop an international plot against her. It includes a recent widower staying in bed for two weeks. It certainly includes your exclusion of an entire neighborhood and its thousands of inhabitants from your care due to some harrowing experiences. As I understand it, most economists, and certainly the ones that influence policy, are not really thinking of these things as “rational”. To them rational means “increasing your own wealth or exchanging your money in the most efficient and expedient way possible”. And that’s very good because this is the way that corporations and rich people that hire people to manage their money effectively operate. But it doesn’t really work for normal people in normal situations. Our lack of information about our surroundings and our incredibly wide array of emotional states doesnt leave a lot of room for rationality. I won’t really expound on it because this is already so long, but having a single definition of rationality also excludes any possibility of having an informed multicultural viewpoint.

throw93232 4y ago
People are rational, model works. But you can not approximate complex system like human brain with couple of variables. There are not hundreds, but millions of biases. Advanced epicycle models had dozens moving parts. JPL planetary ephemerides (modern equivalent in polynomials) have several millions of parameters and terabytes of equations.
m4nu3l 4y ago
The real question for me is, do you think that a Government is different or in a better position than corporations or people operating in the market in making economic decision for an entire country? I believe it isn't. Actually I think it's in a much worse position for the following reasons: 1) A Government is made of people (usually elected directly or indirectly by the majority based on feelings and all the same irrationality), which in turn will likely be "irrational", or have the wrong incentives (be elected again). 2) A Government is made of few people compared to all the people that there are in the Country. They can't possibly know about all the details of the economy and the situations people are in or they can't process it. 3) Government policies can affect the entire economy. An error there can have bigger repercussions than, for instance, a company making a mistake.

bergenty 4y ago

How do you do the double >>