Re: Defining physics

From: Patrick Reany (reany_at_asu.edu)
Date: 07/30/04 

Date: 30 Jul 2004 09:24:06 -0700

"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:<4109f6cf$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> "Patrick Reany" <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:844a1b64.0407291602.6351e864@posting.google.com...
> > Speculation: Physics can be defined as that part of science for which
> > causation can never be proved and might be doable without causality
> > altogether.
> >
> > Patrick
>
> That's real speculation indeed. Does it mean that according to you
> physicists are obliged to accept backwards time travel?
>
> Harald

It does not. I mean only to start a discussion on what one means by
causality in physics. In that effort, you raise a good point. Surely
there are more good points to raise. I have raised many such points in
the past. All of them ignored.

I had thought that sci NGs might be good places to bandy challenging
ideas back and forth, but few here are open to question ANY of their
dogmas, even just as an exercise in creative thought or to clarify the
issues for themselves. People here mostly just resort to intuition for
justifications. If you don't agree with their exhalted intuitions they
have nothing rational to say. They just call you an idiot and wonder
why you can't see how brilliant their version of "reality" is. Welcome
to the newsgroup!

If you think about it, most arguments here are all about "proving"
that one person's version of "reality" is better than anybody else's
version of "reality." Relativists and absolutists fight over ether
like two dogs fighting over an old bone. Who cares. There are far more
interesting things in physics to discuss, like What does relativism
and absolutism really each entail? Relativists challenge ether as
though it's impossible, yet typically they don't give a damn to deal
with the underlying misconceptions that are the cause of mindless
absolutism. They deal only with the symptom and never get to the real
problem.

Patrick

Relevant Pages

  • The universe is a fluke occurrence of random factors
    ... > Patrick wants me to show him one example of causation. ... try to concentrate extra hard this time. ... you do NOT literally SEE causality in action ... What if the entire history of the universe is a fluke occurrence of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The universe is a fluke occurrence of random factors
    ... The immediately above post by Patrick Reany demonstrates that he is ... He asks what if causality is not ... If someone doubts that the universe around him may not be ... When X pulls the trigger of his gun causing the hammer to hit ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Defining physics
    ... causality better than that to him, unless he thinks he was created from QM. ... I challenge Patrick to name one thing he has ... | valid description of nature. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Defining physics
    ... Causality is, beyond a reasonable ... a valid scientific concept in that it correctly describes what ... precedent conditions. ... I challenge Patrick to name one thing he has ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)