Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is beliefevil?

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 08/03/04 

Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:14:17 -0000

 Patrick Reany:
>dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>> Patrick Reany:
>> >dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:
>> >> Why do you think curve fitting doesn't meet your criteria for
>> >> a theory?
>> >
>> >It might help if I'm a bit more specific here. I'm using the term
>> >"theory" as a "physical theory," not a "mathematical theory" -- i.e.,
>>
>> So am I.
>>
>> >a theory devoid of physical content, such as group theory or matrix
>> >theory (yes, they have physical applications, but are not themselves
>> >physical theories).
>>
>> You have stated repeatedly that physical theories are nothing but
>> ``free creations of the mind.''
>
>Go ahead, do a search to find such a quote from me.
 
  That was trivial. Message-id: <3B9F5C13.E947DBC8@asu.edu>,

   ``This is the origin of the multitude of research programs, and it's
    at the heart of the fact the physical theories are free creations
    of the human mind.''

and, Message-id: <3BBF539F.6BC208A2@asu.edu>,

    ``Since theories in physics are formal and free creations, one has
    enormous choice of what postulates one wishes to choose.''

Similarly, Message-id: <3E308973.4020201@asu.edu>,

    ``All models are free creations of the human minds, and have no
    logical connection to the real world.''

  There are potentially 236 more articles with variations on that theme.
How many more would you like? I find it rather irritating to have to
reference something you say at least a few times per week.

>> So, why do you have a problem with
>> a theory of the form, y = A + Bx + Cx^2 + ..., with A, B, C,...
>> defined as physical properties? Since you don't accept the idea
>> that the goal of a physical theory is to ``really'' describe nature,
>> you have no basis to argue that any set of parameters are more
>> physical than any other set of parameters.
>
>The term "more physical" is meaningless to me.

  I know. That was my point. YOU have no criteria by which to judge anything
as ``physical'', ergo, curve fitting is no less a theory than any other
equation.

>Would you care to define it for us"?

  That would be pointless, as you would actually have to try to
understand something about why ``physical'' and ``physics'' have
something in common.

>Let's get what I actually did say right, first: I may have said that
>"physical theories are free creations of the human mind," but that is
>a simplistic characterization.

  Then why do you say it so often?
 
>Why do such smart people have so much
>trouble discerning a characterization from a definition when they hear
>one? (It's more likely, though, that I said "physical concepts are
>free creations of the human mind.")

  That, too.
 
>In any case, I NEVER said physical
>theories are "nothing but free creations of the human mind"!

  Look at what is quoted and what is not quoted in what I wrote.
Either way, I think my summary was justified from the quotes
I've given above, esp., the second.

>(If I
>ever did, I was wrong, but you have yet to prove that I ever did.)
>However, my definition of a "physical theory" is a theory that makes
>predictions testable in the physical realm, or empircally. Maybe you
>missed it.
 
  That applies to curve fitting. In fact, one of your previous
examples of a physical ``law'' is precisely that: Ohm's Law.
Ohm had no physical theory. He merely measured a lot of materials
and after fitting some points, came up with some plots of I vs V,
which were reasonable fits to straight lines with a slope known
as the resistance which was given by a parameter for each material
called the resistivity, \rho, the cross section of the material
and the length of the material, R = \rho l/A.

>But no amount of curve fitting can be proved to give us truth of
>reality, shallow or deep.

  If I replace ``amount of curve fitting'', with ``theory'', how
does that affect that sentence as far as you are concerned? To
the best I have been able to determine, you would also say,
``But no theory can be proved to give us truth of reality,
shallow or deep'', so I still don't see why you would make any
distinction between a theory and curve fitting.

Quantcast