I would be careful of confusing “reality” (whatever that is) with our model of reality. Relativity, which treats time as a dimension, is a good model that fits well with most of our observations. It’s not perfect, though, and it doesn’t fit well with some other observations. That’s how we know that it doesn’t fully match reality, and why we’re looking for a new model.
Paraphrasing the old saying: all models of the universe are wrong, but some are useful.
Time management is different for everyone, and when you’re on a deadline, or just dealing with a one-off situation, the extra research has no value.
Sometimes you don’t need to know how the clock works, you just need to know what time it is.
I suppose the question is which would use less energy: boiling to distill, or boiling just enough to bind the microplastics to the calcium and then filter the now easy-to-remove large particles.
Yes. The hunters would gift their kills to the gatherers, and the gatherers would gift their findings to the hunters. The economic model is known as a “gift economy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure
There is no such thing as not having an “economic model.” As long as there are people with unmet needs and wants, there will be an economy, and that economy can be modeled and given a label.
I agree. Please read my last sentence.
The statement, however, indicated that they were more annoyed that a politician would change their stance because of poling numbers rather than because it’s the right thing to do. My point is that our political system is designed for just that. Politicians have always done what is best for themselves, and expecting different from any politician is naive. Our system is deliberately designed to allow people to put pressure on politicians to (try to) keep them from sacrificing the people they are supposed to govern for their own gain.
I was talking more to the general sentiment of the statement, not to these specific circumstances. Don’t blame a politician for bowing to political pressure from the people. That’s what they’re supposed to do to keep your vote. Allow them to change their policy, even if they don’t change their stance. Instead, blame the ones that double-down on harmful decisions because they don’t want to appear “weak.”
This is all theoretical, of course. Recent elections have shown that too many people are willing to be sacrificed to allow those in charge to appear “strong.”
Oh, no. A politician doing what the people want in order to save his job.
That’s how it’s supposed to work. It’s better than the usual m.o. where the politician does whatever they want and screw the people. Yes, it would be nice if they did what you want from the get-go, but I will vote for the one that changes their stance due to popular pressure over one that “sticks to their guns” no matter who it’s hurting.
(I’m speaking in generalities here. Obviously Biden hasn’t changed his stance yet.)
Unless you’re someone who tends to B-negative anyway.
If I interpret your question correctly, you are basically asking what the practical difference is between interpreting a model as a reflection of reality and interpreting a model as merely a mathematical tool.
A mathematical model, at its core, is used to allow us to make testable predictions about our observations. Interpretations of that model into some kind of explanation about the fundamental nature of reality is more the realm of philosophy. That philosophy can loop back into producing more mathematical models, but the models themselves only describe behavior, not nature.
A model by nature is an analogy, and analogies are always reductionist. Like any analogy, if you poke it hard enough, it starts to fall apart. They make assumptions, they do their best to plug holes, they try to come as close as they can to mirroring the behavior of our observations, but they always fall short somewhere. Relativity and Quantum Chromodynamics are both good examples. Both are very, very good at describing behavior within certain boundaries, but fall completely apart when you step outside of them. (Both, to expand on the example, use constants that are impericaly determined, but we have no idea where they come from.)
The danger is in when you start to assume that a model of reality is reality itself, and you forget that it’s just a best guess of behaviors. Then you get statements like you first made. “Relativity assumes time is a dimension. The model for that works. Therefore time must be a dimension in reality. That must mean that not treating time as a dimension anywhere must be wrong.” That line of thinking, though, forgets that a model is only correct within the scope of the model itself. As soon as you introduce a new model, any assumptions made by other models are no longer relevant. That will pigeonhole your thinking and lead you to incorrect conclusions due to mixed analogies.
That is how you get statements like your first one. “Model A treats time like an illusion, but model B treats time like a dimension. Ergo, all dimensions are illusions .” That is mixing analogies.