Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang

From: Jim Jastrzebski (nospam_at_nospam.com)
Date: 07/02/04 

Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:14:17 -0500

"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:she5e015320v6tbmblskkqrrs7q9ce5q9r@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:36:35 -0500, "Jim Jastrzebski"
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > In fact
> >it is correction for Newtonian gravitation being not physics
> >but magic.
>
> I will take issue with your disparagement and characterization of
> `magic'. Magic is based on solid physical and psychological facts.
> The illusion only produces the effect on the beholder. It is far from
> alchemy or sorcery. If a thing is `not physics', then it is not
> magic.

You are using a different meaning of "magic" (it has a few).

In science, the word "magic" refers to "magical thinking",
which is concluding about real physical effects using false
reasons for those effects (usually without knowing that
they are false). Sometimes it is due to a severe lack of
information (e.g. someone thinks that all words starting
with "S" are related to "bad things" since "Satan" starts
with "S") but most of the time the lack of info is very subtle.

Those things that humans consider reasons for physical effect
but which don't exist in the real world are called "magical"
and the science based on their actions is called "magic".

E.g. when an ancient priest, an hour before dawn, tells the
sun to rise, and the sun does, one may conclude that the
order from the priest is the reason for the sunrise. If the priest
does it every day, there is no way to falsify this assumption
(for the lack of negative results). Even if the priest skips one
day one may argue that the sun got already accustomed to
every morning commands and save the theory that the sun
listens to the priests. Especially when one has other means
of enforcing his theory about the power of priests over the
sun.

Newtonian theory is this kind of theory when it invokes
"gravitational attraction" as the reason for acceleration
of free falling bodies. In this sense it is a magical theory
since results are true (the free falling bodies really
"accelerate" according to the predictions) but the
reason is not that they are attracted with some "universal
attractive gravitational force", the same as the reason for
the sun rising isn't a command from the priest (now you
probably ask how do I know that rising of the sun is not
caused by some priests; well treat it just as my private
opinion).

So in both cases the results are real, repeatable,
satisfying any scientific test. So "magic" is kind of
science and at least can't be easily separated for it.

Before contemporary science existed the magic was the
only science, as opposed to religion, that was a fake in
both reasons and results: you might be praying as much
as you wanted and no results were delivered, while in
magic, when you did everything right (as the mentioned
priest did) you had required results every time (as sun
rising or objects falling with required acceleration).

So magic was supported by reason and logical thinking
while religion was supported by faith and didn't require
any thinking (logical or otherwise). Thinking was not
even encouraged in religions since always caused only
heresy and trouble. To prevent trouble the thinkers
were exterminated when spotted. And so were
magicians (except when they held power)..

So in human history it might started with religion
(wrong reasons, wrong results), through magic,
when humans became a little bit more observant
(still wrong reasons, but all results right), to science
(finally humans learned about some right reasons
causing certain results, and then almost all results
that they wanted to achieve became possible).

E.g. one might say that BB theory is still magic
based on false reasons (of non conservation of
energy) and that's why it is not as successful as
e.g. electrical engineering which accepts
conservation of energy, because perhaps energy
is conserved in the real world.

So the progress of science is in the separation of
science from magic (discovering the real reasons
for whatever is going on around us -- not necessarily
what the "mathematical physicists" would advise),
which is not so simple as one might think: look at
Newtonian theory and look at all those people who
still believe that "gravitation is the fourth fundamental
force of nature", and some even found "fifth
fundamental force" there, in form of "dark energy".
And the reason they give for their beliefs is that
"the math works" (the same as in the case of the
ancient priest; his math worked perfectly well too).

How probable it is that those people know that
even that "fourth fundamental force" is a magical
force that exists only in human imagination, the same
as those super human properties of the ancient
priests who were able to order the sun to rise and
it listened.

So we aren't in the "age of science" yet, we are
still in the "age of magic" as it followed the "age
of faith" (a.k.a. "dark ages"). So it may well be
that most of what we consider "science" is just
"magic". And most of things that we assume as
obvious are just "magical creatures". As e.g.
simultaneity turned out to be. Such a simple
thing that was "obviously" physically real and
"absolute" turned out to have only a relative
meaning: different thing to different people,
no physics behind it i.e. the nature never heard
about it. Purely human concept. Therefore one
of the "magical creatures". But I hope that now
you understand in what meaning this word is
used here.

-- Jim

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang
    ... >> The illusion only produces the effect on the beholder. ... sun rising on command and gravitational attraction interpretations. ... >order from the priest is the reason for the sunrise. ... >both reasons and results: you might be praying as much ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Why strings are required to halt collapse (was: black holes and singularities)
    ... The FRW-model is based on the assumption, ... reasons. ... Of course someone who is expert in nuclear physics would ... > to ``explain'' relativity and similarly use the argument that physicists ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Opinion piece in NY Times - Taking Science on Faith
    ... laws of physics are what they are. ... the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. ... If one traces these reasons all the way down to the ... and that such an explanation may be impossible because these ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: XP Requirement Analysis?
    ... > The reasons are the only ones which hold for any physics statement: ... It's not a simplification, but a distortion so heavy that misleads ... >>disagreement over words that's not worth pursuing further. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... Just saying that someone is wrong or that a statement does not take ... the average physics student would be expected to grasp in the first ... hundred dollars an hour to have me repeat the reasons I have already given ... Perhaps if you pay for an answer, you will pay more attention to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)