Re: Models are not necessarily facsimiles of so-called reality

From: beda (beda-pietanza_at_libero.it)
Date: 12/27/04 

Date: 27 Dec 2004 08:54:10 -0800

reany@asu.edu wrote:
> beda wrote:
> > reany@asu.edu wrote:
> > > beda pietanza wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > > > > > My relying in the existence of the absolute is a logical
need
> > to
> > > adhere
> > > > to
> > > > > > reality as we perceive it,
> > >
> > > Prove your claim! It sounds fascinating. You are able to produce
a
> > hunk
> > > of objective absolute space in a jar for us to look at?
> >
> > the inertia of the jar tells us that it lives in the absolute
space.
>
> Please do explain this for us. I think you suffer from cosmic
vertigo.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > while the relativism brings us on the
> > > > slippery
> > > > > > ground of subjectivism and arbitrariness.
> > >
> > > So, you claim to be able to make a theory with NO subjectivism or
> > > arbitrariness? Bull! Just try it. I'll shoot it down!
> >
> > subjectivism and arbitrariness when forced to deal with objectivity
> are
> > driven to reality by contingent necessities.
>
> Could you explain that better, please?
>
> >
> > subjectivism and arbitrariness without the cult of objectivity are
> > meant to get lost in vacuity.
>
> Talk about vacuity!
>
> >
> [snip]
> > >
> > >
> > > ************************************
> > >
> > > What is really relative about relativity?
> > >
> > > Relativity requires no use of any absolute space concept in order
> to
> > > make useful cross-reference frame measurements/predictions of
> > > positions, velocities, or accelerations in the establishment of
the
> > > covariant laws of physics.
> >
> > And this takes place where???
> > In real 3D space or in a abstract inexistent Space-Time????
> > And what is left if you are forbidden to manipulate clocks?????
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand any of your questions. Could you
> rephrase them?
>
> Until you do, I'll answer you generally: We assume that events in the
> world "occur." The purpose of theory is to arbitrarily invent a
> representation of the relationships of the "real events" (i.e., a
> model) among themselves in such a way that the model can predict what
> measuring instruments can and will measure. Period.
>
> Models are not necessarily facsimiles of so-called reality. It
matters
> not how abstract or seemingly bizarre the model is; it only matters
how
> accurately the model predicts measurements.
>
> It doesn't matter if spacetime is "real" or not. It only matters if
the
> concept of spacetime is instrumental in the invention of a theory
that
> works.
>
> >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Most of the theories or concepts are inadequate even in the
best
> > > heads, and
> > > > surely my knowledge of relativity is not enough even to sustain
> > some
> > > of my
> > > > own assertions against it.
> > >
> > > Then on what basis do you justify making them?
>
> No reply?
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I still have to solve some important issues and questions, on
> some
> > > things I
> > > > cannot give up: in SR space-time is a misrepresentation of real
> > space
> > > and
> > > > time, in GR gravity deforms space geometrically:
> > >
> > > There is no such thing in physics as "real space" or "real time"!
> So,
> > > your claim is blatantly nonsense. I have been trying to tell you
> > people
> > > this for years. It can only ever be the theory that declares
> > > arbitrarily what those variables mean and how they are to be
> > measured.
> > > The instructions aren't chipped into holy stones by God. They are
> > free
> > > inventions of the human mind.
> >
> > "God doesn't toss dices" some of the sort was said by Einstein
> > therefore I really believe that the instructions are chipped into
> holy
> > stones of the nature.
>
> Can you show us these holy stones?

The discovering of Nature secrets, the conservation and the diffusion
of them is part of the task of science.
Many holy stones have already been deciphered and more will be in the
future.
Man is the instrument of Nature to realize its potential possibilities
to the highest degrees
Unfortunately we could fail, all depend on the ones whose heads work :
they must do their best.
The worst do as always their most .
About you even floating up in the air of free will, you may discover by
serendipity some new chimerical exotic bird and so make your
contribution.

Best regards

Beda pietanza

And show where they tell us what
> "real space" or "real time" are.
>
> >
> > About Nature we don't invent we only discover.
> > Best regards
> >
> > Beda pietanza
>
> We never discover the thing-in-itself. And theories are not
discoveries
> in any case. They are free inventions. Theories are explanations and
> the universe doesn't need human anthropomorphic explanations: it just
> does what it does just fine, regardless of what humans think about
it.
>
> The universe laughs at all human attempts to explain how it "really
> works." It treats our spacetime as no better or worse that
phlogiston.
> They're all just anthropomorphic made up stuff.
>
> The universe winks at all our efforts to "discover reality." However,
> it lets out great guffaws every time humans think that they have
> finally grasped "reality."
>
> Patrick

Relevant Pages