lrhorer
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:35 pm

Re: javascript not working on RPi 3

Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:44 pm

Uh, oh, it seems I've sidetracked the topic
How dare you !! ;)
I don't want start a deep theoretical discusson about our universe if you don't mind.
I concur. Two, small nits, however. You included math in the list of disciplines that require external validation, but it isn't. No mathematical form is required to be representative or conformal to any real world feature or process, the fact we use mathematics extensively to model virtually all real world phenomena notwithstanding. Some mathematicians are even distressed when their mathematical premises turn out to have real world applications. They consider it to be a contamination of their "pure" mathematics. On the other side of the coin, it is sometimes astounding when the most bizarre, far out, completely "unnatural" mathematical forms turn out (almost inevitably) to have real world applications. Certainly, to some extent, many mathematical formulations seem to be more a discovery than an invention, which suggests there may be some underlying reality to math. Some go as far as to suggest the world *IS* mathematics, but no matter what, there is no actual restriction that any mathematical form must relate in any way to the real world. The fact it seemingly always does so is incidental. In mathematics, as long as it is internally consistent, it is considered accurate.

The second nit I already covered, and you actually alluded to it in your own response. A theory never becomes a fact. It is always a theory, although sometimes it may become a defunct theory, when further observations or more detailed theories show errors in the theory. A fact, no matter how accurate or inaccurate, is a real world observation. "What goes up must come down" is a fact. It is quite wrong, as the Voyager spacecraft demonstrate, but it is a fact, nonetheless. A theory is a verified explanation of some collection of facts or speculations.

lrhorer
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:35 pm

Re: javascript not working on RPi 3

Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:23 pm

Looks good! Despite you're not a webdeveloper, you did a great job!
Well, thank you very much. You are quite kind. It's not fancy, and I have had a lot of help.
As a matter of fact, we were told at high school that scientific method will work even if we're happen to live in a hologram, an existing physical world is not necessairy at all.
1. Even if we are in a hologram, or an N dimensional projection of an N+K surface, there is still an object with a physical reality projecting the local form.

2. Since the local image is indistinguishable to us from a local reality, within the confines of our local form, we still can draw solid inferences about the structure of the local form, irrespective of whether it is virtual or real. Even if we assume our local universe is virtual, we can actually draw some inferences about certain boundary conditions in the larger universe. We just cannot verify those inferences, so such speculation is not strictly speaking scientific.

3. It follows then, that the First Postulate holds for the larger universe, and by projection is valid within our local form as a subset of the larger set.

QED. :)

lrhorer
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:35 pm

Re: javascript not working on RPi 3

Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:59 pm

If the page is never going to be served across any network I would be inclined to not use a webserver. Or at least not the likes of Apache etc.

Rather, use that web page with Electron and have the "backend" done in node.js within the same Electron application.
That sounds like an excellent idea! I must investigate it. This will only ever appear on the local desktop (LXDE), and even then only during the boot process, and then only if a particular DIP switch on a daughter board is switched off, and then only if a status file written by the output of the web page does not already exist. Basically it will normally only run once when the user first configures the device, and then never again, unless changes are made to the WiFi system in the house.

bzt
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:57 pm

Re: javascript not working on RPi 3

Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:28 pm

lrhorer wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:44 pm
No mathematical form is required to be representative or conformal to any real world feature or process, the fact we use mathematics extensively to model virtually all real world phenomena notwithstanding.
You got it the other way around. The English translation of Mathematics is "knowledge, study, learning". That's not really accurate, to my language it's most often translated to something as "the way you learn relations and connections of things". There's a good reason why it's called the Queen of sciences, because it can be applied to anything because everything has patterns, and math's rules are universal. Ancient Greeks has even proved God cannot be all-mightly, becaue even the Lord must obey the law of mathematics, therefore they called him "only" Demiurgos (the creator in contrast to all-mighty). But we have sailed on the waters of philoshophy (as I've said, we have only one world, having sciences (prular) is just as illusion. Everything is connected to everything).
Some mathematicians are even distressed when their mathematical premises turn out to have real world applications. They consider it to be a contamination of their "pure" mathematics. On the other side of the coin, it is sometimes astounding when the most bizarre, far out, completely "unnatural" mathematical forms turn out (almost inevitably) to have real world applications.
I have never heard of that. All the mathematicians I know (myself included) are pretty aware that math describes things in their most pureest form (one could say the real idea in Platonean meaning), so that's trivial and natural that math's patterns emerge in real life or in other sciences as well. From the wikipedia: "When mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning can provide insight or predictions about nature."
Some go as far as to suggest the world *IS* mathematics
No scientist I know says that. What they say is (wikipedia included), everything in the world *can be described* and understood with math. See the difference? For example if you describe a real tree in front of your house with English words and sentences, that doesn't make the tree disappear and became the description.
A theory never becomes a fact.
Oh, but it does all the time :-)
Before Einstein, nobody knew there's an universal speed limit. When Einstein created his Theory of Relativity and proved that in a mathematical sense, speed of light became a theory. Now that many scientist have proved his theory with countless experiments to be correct over the years, everybody knows that there's a constant, and it is the universal speed limit. Ask any scientist, they will tell you that the speed of light is indeed a *fact*. Upcoming theories can rely on it safely as a premissa without the need of further proving it.
Even if we assume our local universe is virtual, we can actually draw some inferences about certain boundary conditions in the larger universe.
Nope, it doesn't matter. I suggest to wrap your head around inertia systems to see why. From wikipedia: "Conceptually, the physics of a system in an inertial frame have no causes external to the system."

Cheers,
bzt

lrhorer
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:35 pm

Re: javascript not working on RPi 3

Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:35 pm

We said we didn't want a protracted discussion of science, math, and philosophy, but I don't quite feel I can let this go.
You got it the other way around.
Actually, I don't. Some mathematical disciplines are developed specifically in order to help model the real world. This is generally called "Applied Mathematics". One of the first well codified examples of this is Euclidean Geometry. Classical EG is based upon 3 undefined terms: the point, the line, and the plane. Now the fact nothing in nature even remotely resembles any one of the three is irrelevant to EG itself. It doesn't invalidate any theorem in EG. The closest thing to a point in real world physics is the center of a black hole, and it does not seem to be a point, either. Line segments and plane segments can be used to great effect to model vast numbers of real world objects and particularly human artifacts, but in reality nothing completely flat or straight actually exists, and certainly nothing infinite nor anything truly infinitesimal. Furthermore, EG is universally used to model virtually all human artifacts and Earth-bound phenomena. Non-Euclidean Geometry, however, produces wildly different forms than the more restrictive EG. In EG, for example, the sum of the three angles in any triangle is always precisely 180 degrees. In Non-EG, any triangle can exist which has vertices whose angles add up to any value whatsoever, including more than 360 degrees and less than zero. In EG, any two unique lines either intersect at exactly one point, or not at all. Non-EG lines can intersect many, many times, even an infinite number of times, and still be unique, provided there is at least one point on one line where they do not intersect. It would be all but insane to try to model most of the world nearby to us using Non-Euclidean Geometry, yet the reality is every bit of the universe, right down to the very most fundamental objects, are more closely modeled by non-Euclidean constructs. Note furthermore that both EG and non-EG are both perfectly valid, perfectly complete mathematical disciplines, yet neither conforms to the other, and constructs in one form are not consistent with constructs in the other, at all, and constructs in either form are only approximately consistent with real world phenomena.

The universe at every level is approximate. Mathematics is exact. Pi is a transfinite number of completely precise value. An approximate value is 3.1415926535897932384626433832795. The ratio of the circumference to the diameter of the most precisely manufactured disk ever made is perhaps 3.1416. That is quite close in real terms, but infinitely separate in mathematical terms. There are precisely as many points between the actual value of Pi and 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 as there are between 0 and infinity. Nothing of which I know in the real world approximates that. It is a simple fact that, whether any mathematical construct conforms in any way or not to any external form, the construct is still valid as long as it is consistent with the foundation postulates, undefined terms, and formal logic. The construct may conform moderately well to forms in the real world, and it may well be intended to do so from the outset, but it is not a requirement. It may also be true it is extremely difficult, almost impossible, for us to create any mathematical construct that cannot be utilized in some way to model some aspect of the universe, but that may be for any number of reasons, none of which hold any restrictions upon Mathematics.
everything in the world *can be described* and understood with math
"Modeled" is a better word, and that is an assumption. It is not one with which I would quibble, but it is an assumption, nonetheless. Just because we have never come across any phenomena than cannot be approximately modeled via Mathematics does not prove none such exists. There is the very crux of the matter. In Mathematics, every form can be reduced to some exact value or range of values, and everything other than a postulate can be proven without deviation. In Science - especially Applied Science - nothing is ever exact and nothing can ever be proven.
Before Einstein, nobody knew there's an universal speed limit
A "universal speed limit" is a common misconception. Nothing in relativity precludes the existence of an object moving faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, but I will roll with it.
When Einstein created his Theory of Relativity and proved
Einstein didn't prove anything, a notion of which he himself was at some pains to discredit.
that in a mathematical sense, speed of light became a theory.
That the speed of light in a vacuum is constant for every observer regardless of their frame of reference is the First Postulate of Relativity. It remains a postulate. That it should not be possible through any known means to accelerate a massive object to the speed of light is a simple consequence of the fact it would require an infinite amount of energy to do so.
Now that many scientist have proved his theory with countless experiments to be correct over the years
No one has proved the theory, as Einstein himself would stress. There is no other theory in all of science with more supporting evidence than the General Theory of Relativity. Rather oddly, there is significantly less evidence supporting the Special Theory of Relativity, but there is a vast amount of evidence supporting it, as well. Outside of the Quantum realm, no theory is more complete, and there has never been observed an irreconcilable measurement relating to either. They are still, nonetheless, theories. By a vast margin the best supported ones in all of history, but still theories.
everybody knows that there's a constant, and it is the universal speed limit.
Then what "everybody knows" is wrong.
Ask any scientist
You mean like me? What's more, I shouldn't ask a botanist or a psychologist, or even most chemists about it. They are not likely to have much of a good notion.
they will tell you that the speed of light is indeed a *fact*.
The speed of light in a vacuum is indeed a fact. Galileo made some qualitative measurements (or at least attempts to do so) in the 1400s. Subsequent attempts to measure it continue to this day. The first fairly accurate measurements were done in the 1800s. Einstein made the clearly stated assumption the velocity of light in a vacuum is a constant for all observers based upon Michael Faraday's conclusion the velocity of light is equal to the square root of the permeability of free space multiplied by the permittivity of free space. Faraday had been widely discredited in scientific circles, but Einstein thought he had it right.

Shortly before Einstein wrote his first paper on Relativity, Albert A. Michelson had demonstrated that both extant hypotheses concerning the nature of light, based upon the notion there existed a limuniferous aether, were dead wrong. This blasted apart nearly every notion concerning the nature of light except, as it turned out, Faraday's. It is unclear whether Einstein knew about the Michelson - Morley experiment when he first formulated his hypothesis, or not.
Upcoming theories can rely on it safely as a premissa without the need of further proving it.
Since nothing in science is ever proved, the statement isn't well formed. It is true that any new hypothesis is likely to be based upon extant inferences, such as the notion no ordinarily massive object can quite reach the speed of light WRT any observer in the universe, regardless of how strong or tenuous the inferences might be.

One final comment I would like everyone to consider, and also research if it sounds bizarre, impossible, or or just interesting. The notion that no observer will ever measure the velocity of any normal object relative to himself to be greater in magnitude than the speed of light in a vacuum says something much more important about the observer's frame of reference than it does about the object or any "speed limit". You see, it is perfectly permissible for an object to travel at, say, 3/4 the speed of light relative to an observer. If the object has any significant mass at all, it is damnably difficult, but certainly theoretically possible. Indeed, it is quite possible to have three observers, we will call them A, B, and C, with A traveling at 3/4c to the left relative to B and C traveling at 3/4c to the right relative to B. Isaac Newton would have concluded A and C would measure each other's speed relative to each other to be 1.5c. It seems he would have been wrong. A would measure B's speed to be 3/4c, but he would measure C's speed to be .96c. C would also measure B's speed to be .75c, and A's speed to be .96c. The important notion is not so much an object can't "travel" at c, it is that no observer will ever measure the speed of any normally massive object to be c. The other important notion is that this is not just a limit of the method of measurement. After all, SONAR will never measure an object to be traveling at or beyond the speed of sound, which *IS* merely a limitation of the method of measurement. The limitation for light, however, is assumed to be fundamental to the nature of the universe itself.
Conceptually, the physics of a system in an inertial frame
Sure. Too bad there is actually no such thing as an inertial frame in the real world. It is also too bad that, even if there were such a physical thing, a hologram or projection is not an inertial frame, and is definitely not so in the larger system. It could indistinguishably appear so in the smaller frame.

bzt
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:57 pm

Re: javascript not working on RPi 3

Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:09 pm

lrhorer wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:35 pm
Since nothing in science is ever proved
This statement alone was enough to convince me that the following applies to you very much:
Carl Sagan wrote: You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
Let me know if/when you've dropped your biases, and willing to accept evidences. Until then, bye. (Don't get me wrong, no hard feelings. It's just you are not ready to have serious conversation yet.)

Cheers,
bzt

lrhorer
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:35 pm

Re: javascript not working on RPi 3

Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:45 pm

Carl Sagan wrote:
Carl Sagan would have been among the first to agree with me completely, right along side Albert Einstein, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Richard Dawkins and a host of other top scientists. For that matter, I am not certain that Carl Sagan did not say the very same thing I did at some point.

I suggest you read the following:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... d4dd1c2fb1

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017 ... 111c165392

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ific-proof

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0 ... science_04



Here are some quotes from a number of well known scientists:

Albert Einstein:
The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No" - most theories, soon after conception.

Sir Karl Popper
"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Richard Feynman:
"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

Bertrand Russell:
"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

Yet again, Albert Einstein:
"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."
You can't convince a believer of anything
I am not a believer. I believe nothing whatsoever.
Let me know if/when you've dropped your biases
It s not possible for anyone to remove all biases. Nevertheless, I think I have supported my position thoroughly, biased or not.
willing to accept evidences
What evidence? I have provided a modest amount of evidence supporting my position, along with a number of opinions from well respected scientists. I don't recall you providing any which inarguably supported your position.

bzt
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:57 pm

Re: javascript not working on RPi 3

Thu Nov 22, 2018 11:57 am

lrhorer wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:45 pm
I don't recall you providing any which inarguably supported your position.
Nope, I never tell you what to think. If I were, I weren't any better than you. Instead I've gave you links and pointers where to continue, what to search for, and I encourage you to check the validy of the source, read them all, use deduction based only on facts, not biases. FYI, the whole purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate biases. As Euclid put it, "don't believe anything just because somebody said so". (Just for the records, a quote from a scientist is not a proof by any means, that's just a sidenode to help you understanding.)

I feel sorry for you, I really do. So I gave this last chance to you. From your quote:
Einstein wrote:If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe,"
That's exactly what I'm saying. That's the reason why two independent conduction of the same experiment is required at a mininum, and "an experiment" alone is not enough. And if ALL the experiments (regardless who, when and where conducts it) leads to the same result (I repeat ALL of them), that's when you can call the theory a bias-less fact. For example: evolution was just a theory at the time of Darwin with only one experiment to support it (Darwin's voyage). Now, several years later no matter what experiment we do (biochemical, ethological, genetical, even archeological etc.), it always turns out to be correct, therefore the existance of the evolution is now a fact. Does it eliminate the bias that God created an unchanging world for superior humans without the dinosaurs? Yes. Another example: do we have evidence of tecthonic movements? Yes, anybody can verify those (just check the coastline of South-America and Africa, or if you are a botanist, you can check the fossils too). Does it eliminate the bias of a static Earth with static continents? Of course it does.
But let me point out, if you don't believe the evidences and the results of the experiments (which you've said to neglect), then you're nothing more than a blindfolded believer.

Think about it.

Cheers,
bzt

Return to “Other programming languages”