Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one
mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: 10/08/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: Russell E. Rierson: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:18:08 GMT
In article <2smqk1F1muvvtU1@uni-berlin.de>, "robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> writes:
>
>
>mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> The thing that was found to be counterfactual is not any of Newton's
>> laws but something that Newton took as so self evident that he didn't
>> deem it appropriate to make it a separate law (in retrospect, it
>> should've been "the zeroth law"), namely the law governing
>> transformations between reference frames. Newton took Galilean
>> transformations as self evident.
>
>That is precisely the issue of composing velocities by simple addition.
It has a bearing on this issue, but it is not *precisely* this issue.
In fact it is a much larger issue (of which the composition of velocities
is but a corollary). The key element in choosing a transformation
group is the selection of invariants. Newton assumed the invariance
of space and time intervals (mind you, given the information at his
disposal, this was a perfectly reasonable assumption). This is what
leads to Galilean transformations.
>As I said, Newton's phyiscs is mathematical sound (or can be made
>mathematatically sound by modern standards) but it is counterfactual.
Yes, indeed. So, the key point here is that consistency and
correctness of a theory are separate issues (and least that's what, I
gather, you were saying and, if so, I concur).
>Any theory makes a wrong prediction is ipso fact counterfactual. A non
>counterfactual theory, will always make correct predictions. Such a
>theory may be incomplete in the sense of not addressing every kind of
>processe or phenomenon but it will make correct predictions, each time,
>every time.
>
>A theory is precisely as good as the predictions it makes. That is what
>a physics theory is. It is a prediction cranker-outer.
Yep. If it can't do this, it is worthless.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: Russell E. Rierson: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
