Johannes Kepler – A Mysterious Cosmographist

I have found following quote in the profile of another chowky.


``It is by intuition that we discover and by logic that we prove.`` Henri Poincare, Mathematician...


I want to add that more prcise name of ``intuition`` is actually ``analogical inference``. Whereas branch of logic whose function is to ``prove`` is the ``deductive logic``.

All types of logic works only on sensory data.

There are two main types of ``sensory data``.

First type is ``ordinary or routine sensory information``.

Second type is ``planned``, or ``controlled``, or ``experimental``, or ``laboratory`` oriented sensory information or data.

First type generates ``analogical inferences``, or so-called ``intuitions``.

Then we confirm the validity of analogical inferences through ``controlled observations``, or ``experiments``.

Then we SHOULD apply deductive logic with the view to interpret the experimental confirmations. Then we should Prove our interpretation by using deductive logic.

Regards!

majumdar:

Thanks for referring to Somnium. I wasn`t aware of it. On searching on internet, I found Gale E. Christianson`s article ``Kepler`s Somnium: Science Fiction and the Renaissance Scientist.`` It was published in ``Science Fiction Studies, #8, Volume 3, Part I, March 1976,`` which gives a good account of Kepler`s biography as well.

Mohammad Gill

Gill sahib,

Was Kepler`s work ``Somnium`` the first work of science fiction.

Regards

@ Kaalchakara

If you want to know the difference between ``Knowledge`` and ``logic``, then please read my following article:

Human Knowledge and its Expression

Scientist do not know what is ``knowledge`` because Knowledge, being an abstract entity, is outside the scope of study of science.

Scientists do not study ``logic`` as well. Because they consider it something opposite to that something about which they know nothing i.e. ``knowledge``.

Even scientific theories take their birth iside of human mind. You cannot say that scientific theories come outside of mind. Mind is also an abstract entity. It is not the physical brain. Scioentists only study physical brain and they don`t study ``mind``. Study of physical brain only can tell reasons of some psychological or other neurological disorders etc. Study of physical brain cannot tell just how scientific or other theories take birth inside of ``mind``. Only study of ``mind`` can tell it.

Only Philosophers can know how any theory can take birth inside of mind. Because only they study such abstract things as ``mind``. So Philosophers can legitimately give their opinion on any theory including scientific theories as well.

Scientists are very poor in abstract conceptions. They can see only visible and solid things which they can count or measure. They become very happy if they successfully count or measure some solid or any detectable entity. That is why they study only mathematics. I was also very much inspired by mathematics when I was not mentally so mature. Just measuring and counting is not equivalent to ``knowledge``.

I also can quote sayings of some renowned people, like who said lower-most level people think only about group and individual differences with respect to their wealth, outlook and beliefs. Midiocre people think only about solid, visible, or measurable or countable things. And the great people think about ideas etc. etc.

Regards!

@ freethinker # 60

You just have presented few biased opinions of some (may be) renowned figures. They are not important to consider at all. Instead of saying X said this and that, please come to the point and try to prove that a raindrop which is attached to a windscreen of a moving car, can have its speed lesser than windscreen.

Re: # 59

OK. Now we are getting somewhere!

So,
T1 -> Before the instance of change = zero
T2 -> AT the instance of change = x
T3 -> After the instance of change = x

Now, can you explain what is T2 minus T1 ? Is it a non-zero value?

---

Khurram,

If you are trying to find ``rate of change of momentum``, you should try to find it in only one single of the obove entities. Which is only T2.

At time T2, value of momentum is x.

There is no question of T2 minus T1.

T2 itself has no breakup. T2 is a single point of time.


Secondly, it is also useless to see change of momentum of only one ball. Momentum of one ball can be changed only through the application of an already existing momentum. Total momentum however remains the same at any time.

Re #62 GT,
LOL!
I am afraid Mr Gill has now distracted us. :)

Freethinker # 60

So true. Even a minimally acceptable philosopher must recognize that philosophy is logical, human, mental work that could proceed in any number of different ways (which makes philosophy very different from revelationary theology). Also, because of its speculative and mental nature philosophy can soar over and above different domains. Yet within the domain of knowledge identified by prevailing science, philosophy cannot contradict established scientific knowledge and principles, except by the mechanism of a philosopher working strictly as a scientist.

That must be so because otherwise it would be impossible to distinguish between knowledge & logic on one hand and deliberate deceit on the other, and between a scholar and a social charlatan. And we know for a fact that most people are simply trying to deliberate and work as honestly as they can.

Re: # 59

khurram,

I am eagerly waiting for this drama to end ...... I have bitten off all my nails ..... when will you ask for that dreadful division ..... when?

Correction:

In my last post, please read in continuation to my post #5:

Mohammad Gill

In continuation of my post#:

In my post#5, I had quoted from Steven Weinberg about philosophy. Allow me now to quote of Carl Gauss, one of the greatest mathematicians of all times. According to E.T. Bell (Men of Mathematics, pp. 239-240), ``It will be of interest here to quote what Gauss thought of philosophers who busy themselves with scientific matters they have not understood. This holds in particular for philosophers who peck at the foundations of mathematics without having first sharpened their beaks on some hard mathematics. Conversely, it suggests why Bertrand A. W. Russerll, Alfred North Whitehead and David Hilbert in our own times have made outstanding contributions to the philosophy of mathematics: these men are (were) mathematicians.

Writing to his friend Schumacher on November 1, 1844, Gauss says, `You see the same sort of thing [mathematical inconsistencies] in the contemporary philosophers Schelling, Hegel, Nees von Easenbeck, and their followers: don`t they make your hair stand on end with their definitions? Read in the history of ancient philosophy what the big men of that day - Plato and others (I except Aristotle) - gave in the way of explanations. But even with Kant himself it is often not much better; in my opinion his distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions is one of those things that either run out in a triviality or are false.```

Bell further wrote, ``When he (Gauss) wrote this Gauss had long been in full possession of non-Euclidean geometry, itself a sufficient refutation of some of the things Kant said about `space` and geometry, and he may have been unduly scornful.``

In spite of it, philosophy does contribute lot of useful things to the development of science but its formulations are not always correct and faultless.

Mohammad Gill

Re: #58.
OK. Now we are getting somewhere!

So,
T1 -> Before the instance of change = zero
T2 -> AT the instance of change = x
T3 -> After the instance of change = x

Now, can you explain what is T2 minus T1 ? Is it a non-zero value?

Re: # 57

[...] -- I am only asking about the momentum of the raindrop. If you believe in `instantaneous`` change from 0 to x, then you have to explain which of the 2 values applies at the ``instance of change``. 0 or x? it can`t have both , can it? -- [...]


Before the instance of change = zero (suppose drop was suspended)

AT the instance of change = x

After the instance of change = x


Because at the instance of change, drop shall acquire the same velocity of car.

How much the momentum of car will be affected...??? this issue requires ``quantitative`` analysis ... so this is the task of science and not the task of Philosophy.

Regards!

Re # 56.
Of course, I know that total momentum is conserved.

I am only asking about the momentum of the raindrop. If you believe in `instantaneous`` change from 0 to x, then you have to explain which of the 2 values applies at the ``instance of change``. 0 or x? it can`t have both , can it?

Re: # 55

``OK. Then what is the momentum at time T1? Is it 0 or x?``


Yar it is simple.

Total momentum before the instance of collision = m1v1 + m2v2

Total momentum at the instance of collision = m1v1 + m2v2

Total momentum after the instance of collision = m1v1 + m2v2

Re #54, khuram,
``There is no question of ``rate of change of momentum`` in the case of instantaneous shift in quantity of momentum.``

OK. Then what is the momentum at time T1? Is it 0 or x?