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

From: Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/29/04 

Date: 29 Nov 2004 14:52:43 -0800

In <844a1b64.0411250841.e2f9635@posting.google.com>
"Patrick Reany" <reany@asu.edu> wrote:
> . . .
> First, we aren't gods.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com> comments:
   There is a way to see this as being correct.
Certainly, none of us here is God. But at the same
time, we were made by God. We were made in His
image. (And God does not lie, nor does he put on
false images on the things He makes!) As made by
God, we know the differences between good and evil.
Unless we had this power, to know, we could not have
sinned. We know, and we know, and we know, just as
God knows.

Reany wrote:
> 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.

O'Barr comments:
   This sure is better than when you said that
everything was a free invention! Since we do not yet
know everything, then certainly, there might be a bit
of truth to your position that part of what we think
we now know might be just a free invention of the
human mind.
   But you are totally wrong to infer that we cannot
know any truth at all! This is sick, and stands in
direct opposition to science. Every time you step
onto a plane, or drive a car, gives proof of how
false you are! There are many truths that we do
know.

Reany wrote:
> 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.

O'Barr comments:
  Come on, Reany! And what is this word, ‘physical'?
Are you trying to be another O'Barr?
  Look, if you are going to be complete, you must
mention from the very first that there really is a
real reality, which stands on its own, being
independent and absolute. This real reality is not
dependent on any free expression or free invention of
the human mind, or on anything else! And science
shows that this real reality is knowable, and
quantifiable, and able to be controlled by man!

Reany wrote: . . .

<O'Barr deleting of things that appear to only be
definitions.>

Reany wrote: . . .
> ... We don't have to be concerned about whether
>electrons and atoms "really" exist so long as they
>"exist" . . . .

O'Barr comments:
   Hey! Who said that you could never get anything
right!

<O'Barr deleting more definitions>

Reany wrote:
> . . . you can see that the entire question of the
>existence of a "true clock" is meaningless from the
>viewpoint of verification. . . .

O'Barr comments:
   Except you have totally ignored the whole concept
and power of statistics, and you have not provided
one scientific test to confirm your above statement.
Thus, what you say is unscientific. It sounds like
it is a philosophy that you seemed to have developed,
with no science to support it or to confirm it.
Shame on you for putting all this on a science net!
   It might be true that if all you had was one set
of correlations, as you tried to present things, you
might get away with your thinking. But what usually
happens in physics, is that you often get a multitude
of correlations. And when there are a multitude of
correlations, and they are independent correlations,
and they all support the same conclusions, then there
would be no reason not to accept their conclusions as
being correct. Where have you been, Reany? Haven't
you had any science yet?

Reany wrote: . . .
> 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.

O'Barr comments:
   I have no interest in words, whether they are
‘instrumentalists' or ‘realists.' Who could care
about labels like these? I care about having the
proper instruments and in understanding them and
their proper use, and I care about understanding
reality. We do not need more than this.
   So I take it, Reany, that you have this thought
that everything we do, all the cars and trains and
planes and rockets we make, are working on false and
incorrect concepts. To you, every one of these
working items are working only because we
accidentally applied incorrect ideas in an accidental
way that accidentally worked, and we foolish believe
that because they work, our concepts are correct!
   And only you know all this! What a great idea you
have, Reany! But it is not science, and does not
belong on this net.

Reany wrote: . . .
> 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.

O'Barr comments:
   I am sure we can do anything. We could define up
to be down, and down to be up. But why would we do
such a thing? I am sure that different theories
could have different meanings to time. But I do not
know of any. And for the life of me, I cannot see
why anyone would want to make a theory that had a
different meaning to time.

Reany wrote:
> And if it hasn't become painfully obvious to you
>yet, the central concept in physics is the theory.

O'Barr comments:
   Sorry, Reany. The principle concern of Physics is
to understand our reality so that we can increase our
control over this reality that we enjoy. And we are
very successful in doing all this. I cannot
understand how you have missed all this. Maybe you
haven't gone shopping for the last 100 years or so?
Might I suggest that you start by going into a
computer store and look around!

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com>

Relevant Pages