Re: Physics is the study of all things physical. (there, I fixed it)

From: AllYou! (idaman_at_conversent.net)
Date: 11/29/04 

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:36:57 -0500

The mere fact that you've chosen to change the header to include the notion of reality in
response to me demonstrates that you're not listening to my argument but, instead,
constructing my argument for me because you have a counter to it all ready to go. either
that, or you have no counter argument to mine and so you're rather use another one.
either way, it's insulting and extraordinarily disingenuous.

"Patrick Reany" <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.0411250841.e2f9635@posting.google.com...
> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:<daSdndtqCcCwSzncRVn-jA@conversent.net>...
> > "Patrick Reany" <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:844a1b64.0411240952.5d8947c@posting.google.com...
> > > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:<0-ydnV9wnccHFjncRVn-iA@conversent.net>...
> > > > "Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:lup7q05nslgaq7q51u5udu4mtv0o4ihhrl@4ax.com...
> > > > > On 23 Nov 2004 06:18:03 -0800, reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > 2) Physics is likely not much hurt by this general lack of
> > > > > > appreciation concerning the abstract nature of time. Physicists tend
> > > > > > to NOT keep their wits about them concerning time, yet they tend to be
> > > > > > able to invent principle theories that work anyway. The single biggest
> > > > > > error that the crank believes is that modern physics is not successful.
> > > > > > It is!
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course. You can ALWAY putin placeholders for gaps in actual knowledge.
> > > > > But it is, and will alway be, a lousy subsitute.
> > > >
> > > > Perfectly said. I could not agree more.
> > >
> > > I expected you to do better than to be taken in by a mere platitude.
> > > The claim you gave your assent to is vacuous!
> > >
> > > If there is only one good thing about the study of philosophy it is
> > > that it helps us from being taken in by a platitude.
> >
> > Notwithstanding any point you were trying to make, tell me this, if physics is about
> > building models which work, what is the model for time and how does it work?
>
> First, we aren't gods. Human knowledge is at best a placeholder
> substitute for truth. Get used to it! To everything we know, we must
> admit that it is part free invention from the human mind.
>
> Second, the long answer to your question:
>
> Every variable in a physical theory, which is a direct measurable, has
> three aspects:
>
> 1) abstract concepts (conceptual and formal),
> 2) measuring instruments,
> 3) operational definitions that connect the first two.
>
> Abstract concepts are simply what is our mind's view of them. Formal
> abstract concepts are the representations of our mind's view of the
> concepts codified into a formal symbolic system, such as in the theory
> of continuous variables in calculus, which is how time is usually
> formally modeled. Time is usually taken as an independent continuous
> variable.
>
> By use of operational definitions the theorist and the experimentalist
> are forced to speak the same language, and I mean this literally, as
> the operational definition contains within it a unique public
> semantics of the meaning of the variable being measured. You can
> personalize the meaning of a variable for private use by adding to it
> any additional meaning you care to add into your personal natural
> philosophy. However, for communal discourse in physics, the
> operational definition is the only allowable intersubjective meaning.
> This is the place where metaphysics was removed from physics. And much
> of the necessity for doing that goes to the requirement that physics
> be intersubjective. We don't have to be concerned about whether
> electrons and atoms "really" exist so long as they "exist" relative to
> theories that work.
>
> In the case of time, we conceive of time (making it abstract in that
> act alone), in which time is used to order events, possibly even
> continuously, and metrically (i.e., we can assign ordering by numbers
> in such as way that the comparison of pairs of events has meaning
> beyond mere ordering). Thus, the short answer: time is typically
> modeled in theories as a continuous metrical variable.
>
> We invent the notion of an ideal clock and DECLARE which real
> instruments come close to realizing this idealization for particular
> usages. The best we can hope for here is consistency of theory and
> measurment. When that is satisfied then we invent an operational
> definition that completely describes how time measurements are made.
>
> There is no absolute platform we can get into by which to judge the
> Truthfulness of any operational definition or judgment about which
> clock is "true in reality." Either the theory works or it doesn't.
> Hopefully, by now you can see that the entire question of the
> existence of a "true clock" is meaningless from the viewpoint of
> verification. Instrumentalists, like myself, prefer not to deceive
> ourselves that we have more truth than we can prove. Realists don't
> seem to have any problem with this kind of self-deception. How many
> times I have asked realists to stop making vacuous claims and prove
> the claims they repeat over and over, and not one of them has
> succeeded in doing so even once.
>
> Realism is the opiate of the masses (epistemologically speaking).
> Physics is NOT about reality or truth; it is about the invention of
> theories that work, because physics can PROVE that it can accomplish
> that much! Hoping that something is true doesn't make it true.
>
> The meaning of a time measurement has no provable absolute status, and
> is, in fact, completely under the arbitrary authority of the theory
> that uses the concept of time. Different theories can have differing
> meanings to time.
>
> And if it hasn't become painfully obvious to you yet, the central
> concept in physics is the theory.

Once again, all you can do is return to the notion of realism. Until you're ready to
accept that's not my argument, we can go no further.

Relevant Pages

  • Realism is the opiate of the masses (in physics)
    ... measuring instruments, ... semantics of the meaning of the variable being measured. ... However, for communal discourse in physics, the ... operational definition is the only allowable intersubjective meaning. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Has the speed of light emitted by a fast moving particle been measured ?
    ... | Does that stop you from measuring, for example, your average speed ... Light with the Principle of Relativity. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ... that the velocity of light in our theory plays the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Fine structure constant
    ... The form of the formula relating the fine structure constant ... to the electron charge depends on the unit system used. ... If you were to set up an experiment measuring eps_0 ... Physics should aim for the simplest possible description. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... measuring the length of length of a microbe ... any trait (of any species of organism) that is of any organism, ... I agree the chain of reasoning you put forward, was long, and doesn't ... If the organism follows the laws of physics as you so clearly ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
    ... A iFoR is a coordinate system for measuring space and time .. ... but without one you don't really have much physics to talk about. ... Just like an observer in a train sees a ball being thrown directly ... perception of reality. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)