Re: Proving hydrogen and physical models
From: Albert (alwagner_at_tcac.net)
Date: 07/27/04
- Next message: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- In reply to: Patrick Reany: "Re: Proving hydrogen and physical models"
- Next in thread: Patrick Reany: "Re: Proving hydrogen and physical models"
- Reply: Patrick Reany: "Re: Proving hydrogen and physical models"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:42:43 -0500
reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
<snip>
> > What evidence suggests that there is any deeper reality?
>
> Proof positive, none. But I'm not making metaphysical claims
> for or against "deep reality," though I am making hypothetical
> claims for"deep reality" as a freely invented human concept to
> be exploited for modeling opportunities. Even a person who
> doesn't believe in deep reality can invent models of
> hypothetical objects that live in hypothetical deep reality!
> Physics is not restricted to only those things you believe in
> as "real."
<snip>
> I cannot believe that our human beliefs about the
> "truthfulness" of physical models have no bearing on how we
> make them or what kind of models we allow ourselves to make.
> One's philosophy of physics does indeed affect the practice of
> physics.
<snip>
> No. Though you may use it as such as a metaphor. It's supposed
> to refer to any notion of truth that is objective and
> independent of human declaration, verification, frailties, or
> infalibilities. God's own Truth would do in a pinch.
<snip>
> You have the wrong idea of instrumentalism. Instrumentalism
> takes no stand on the metaphysical (as opposed to conceptual)
> existence of deep reality. All it cares about--at it's simplest
> description, Daniel Weston--is the production of theories that
> work. Instrumentalism long ago opted out of arguments about
> what's true and what's real. Instrumentalism has no goal of an
> ulitmate theory, though it doesn't claim that one is not
> possible.
>
> I think that you also have the wrong idea of "deep reality."
> "Deep reality" is a presumed "reality" deeper than what is
> palpable to human sensations and to instrument readings, but is
> not so deep that it has no influence at all on the world of our
> sensations or instrument readings. That would be "hyper-deep
> reality." ;-) I never--or at least rarely--talk about such
> things because they are "irrelevant" in usual physics, except
> perhaps as counterfactuals or some other infrequently used
> examples.
>
> Newton's point mass particle is a hypothetical element of "deep
> reality." To an instrumentalist it doesn't matter if there
> "really are" point mass particles or not; all that matters is
> whether the model of the point mass particle is instrumental to
> the invention of a theory that works, and in the case of
> Newton's mechanics, the model is good on the theory's limited
> domain of applicablility.
It has taken many posts and many misunderstandings but I think I
have finally come to a minimal understanding of your arguments.
I never knew the name before but I am apparently also an
instrumentalist and I also see great utility in the concept of
deep reality. Thank you for the education.
--
"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: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- In reply to: Patrick Reany: "Re: Proving hydrogen and physical models"
- Next in thread: Patrick Reany: "Re: Proving hydrogen and physical models"
- Reply: Patrick Reany: "Re: Proving hydrogen and physical models"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|