Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang
From: vonroach (hadrainc_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 07/02/04
- Next message: MDJ: "Solar features and solar observing [PLUG]"
- Previous message: vonroach: "Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang"
- In reply to: Jim Jastrzebski: "Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang"
- Next in thread: Jim Jastrzebski: "Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang"
- Reply: Jim Jastrzebski: "Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:18:22 GMT
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:14:17 -0500, "Jim Jastrzebski"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>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.
Whew, a long discourse. I'll add some comments. The object of
communication is to share thoughts as exactly as possible. The choice
of the correct word is an important part of this task. I would prefer
the word `naive thinking' for `magical thinking' and illusion for the
sun rising on command and gravitational attraction interpretations.
A magician also uses illusion but he/she does not use it naively, it
is based on solid scientific physical and psychological principals. I
would prefer to use `magic' to apply to this art and science.
Naive thinking extend far into prehistory and is still around today
with a belief in witches, ghosts, etc... It is usually man's first
attempt to explain puzzles.
>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".
As before, I prefer illusions and naive interpretation.
>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).
Newton correctly linked acceleration and force.
>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.
An illusion is repeatable only because the spectators are thinking
naively, while the illusionist practices his scientific trade.
>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).
Science has been with us a very long time, hampered for many centuries
by naive thinking . Actually Newton's was an attempt to introduce
mathematical thinking for naive thinking.
>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)..
Faith has no place in this discussion. It is belief and faith ,
unrelated to thinking. It has encouraged thinking in many ways, except
where it was perceived that thought was contradicting doctrine. That
perception was itself an illusion based on naive thinking and a
misunderstanding of faith. Incidentally, many great scientist,
including Einstein were reasonably religious folks.
>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).
Science is the process of discovering the correct interpretation of
the processes of the universe in so far as we know them at any time.
>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.
I understand but disagree with terms used. Plus it may be too soon to
close the book and say finished, particularly on dark energy and dark
matter at the moment. We perhaps would not recognize today's cosmology
in a hundred or two years. `Time' marches forward.
>-- Jim
>
- Next message: MDJ: "Solar features and solar observing [PLUG]"
- Previous message: vonroach: "Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang"
- In reply to: Jim Jastrzebski: "Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang"
- Next in thread: Jim Jastrzebski: "Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang"
- Reply: Jim Jastrzebski: "Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
