Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/11/05
- Next message: lucy: "any trick of solving this equation?"
- Previous message: poopdeville_at_gmail.com: "Re: Closed set with Cantor-Bendixson Rank omega"
- In reply to: Alessandro Loesch Jannuzzi: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:14:22 -0600
Alessandro Loesch Jannuzzi wrote:
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@cornell.edu> wrote in message news:<MPG.1c757c9cfb0e7c599896d8@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>
>>robert j. kolker said:
>>
>>>
>>>Albert wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Reality is not based on axioms, but rather physical laws.
>>>
>>>Physical laws are human artifacts which are used to define the physical
>>>world in which we live. Reality just is. There are no laws other than
>>>what we prescribe to make sense out of what we perceive and experience.
>>>
>>>Bob Kolker
>>>
>>
>>So, there are no rules that govern the universe, except in our minds?
>>Before people, the universe wasn't consistently behaving according to
>>rules that govern the interactions between entities in it?
>
>
> Let me see if I get it right. Bob, Albert, help me here if needed, ok
> ?
> Nature was there, being nature since "fiat lux" and behaving like
> always.
> As we were not there, it is quite an absurd discuss rules, because it
> is a human construction. Reality has facts, the only non-human element
> as far as we can say. The interpretation of these facts is a
> first-level abstraction that may or may not create rules if logically
> concateneted with other interpretations. This process takes place on
> the unique scenario this can happen: the human mind. We observe
> nature, use math to work with them more efficiently, test the results
> by experimentation and produce science.
> We put science on our glasses and look at the world again. Now with an
> accurate vision. But nature still only has facts. The model is inside
> our head.
If I understand you correctly, then you seem to have a handle on it.
There is great regularity in the behaviour of Nature. What is
often and properly referred to as 'natural law' is the regulatory
mechanism that was functioning in Nature long before Man came on
the scene. Science is what Man does when he observes, names and
measures that regularity in Nature's behaviour. Math gives Man
tools for measuring. The purpose of all this is to be able to
predict how the regulatory mechanism will behave when we intervene.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
- Next message: lucy: "any trick of solving this equation?"
- Previous message: poopdeville_at_gmail.com: "Re: Closed set with Cantor-Bendixson Rank omega"
- In reply to: Alessandro Loesch Jannuzzi: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
