Re: Physics is simple...we complicate it

From: nightbat (nightbat_at_home.ffni.com)
Date: 01/07/05 

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:59:03 -0500

nightbat wrote

"AllYou!" wrote:
>
> "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105124504.494350.20030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > AllYou! wrote:
> > > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > > news:crm72e$j40@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > > > AllYou! wrote:
> > > > > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:crk8er$pd6@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > > > >>To me, neither time nor space exist -- they are just MODELS
> > > > >>(specifically, models of relationships). Ditto for energy,
> > momentum, etc....
> > > > >
> > > > > So space and matter an energy are not physical in nature?
> > > >
> > > > Please read what I wrote. I did NOT say that.
> > >
> > > That's why I'm asking the question. If you had said it, I would've
> > read it and would not
> > > have asked you the question. Let me ask another way.......are your
> > models more than
> > > abstractions or are they models of the physical realm?
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Then what is the goal of
> > > > > physics to you? Seriously, is it just model building, or is
> > there a
> > > > > more direct purpose?
> > > >
> > > > To me, the purpose of physics is to build models of the world, and
> > to
> > > > validate those models experimentally.
> > >
> > > That's too vague. The term *the world* could mean anything. Do you
> > mean to say reality?
> > > Or just the physical world? Or just that which is observable? Do
> > you mean within the
> > > universe? External to the universe? What is the world to you and
> > what are it's
> > > limitations in terms of model building?
> >
> > I don't think its possible for us to distinguish between these options.
> > Whether we are predicting reality or predicting our observations of
> > reality is immaterial, especially if it is a universally verifiable
> > prediction among arbitrarily chosen observers.

> AllYou!
> Wouldn't it be fair to simply say that we're prediciting that which is physical? to say
> that we simply build models and those may or may not have anything to do with what we
> observe is too wide open. Physics should be about understanding the physical and not just
> the hobby of building models.

nightbat

        Trouble is reality includes the invisible quantum which is not
just the limited observable physical. Beyond the present observable we
do have the invisible quantum state physical effects and only the theory
models behind them.

>
> > > > Understanding of how the models
> > > > work is necessary, with the caveat that there is no guarantee
> > > > whatsoever that understanding a model implies understanding the
> > world.
> > >
> > > but how are you to know if they *work*? Yes, I'm sure you'll say
> > through experiments, but
> > > upon what do you do experiments? Just the physical? Is there even
> > such a thing as doing
> > > an experiment on an abstraction?
> >
> > An experimental prediction by definition implies an observation that
> > has not been previously made - implying that the outcome is uncertain,
> > and that reality dictates the outcome, not the observer, though there
> > may be some *coloring* of the outcome of the observer. I can't see how
> > this could be accomplished with anything that would be construed as an
> > experiment on an abstraction.

> Allyou!
> I'm simply trying to establish that when we speak of building models, we must mean models
> of that which we sense to be physical. Agreed?

nightbat

        Ha, ha, ha, that was Einstein's preference, the reality of the
world includes the quantum however and buildings models to hopefully
understand the effects or predicting limited or guarded outcome due to
the uncertainty factor on the physical. It is only when the no evidence
fantasy based sci fi folks get in on the open playground that all hell
breaks lose.

        the nightbat

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Physics is simple...we complicate it
    ... >> mean to say reality? ... >> Whether we are predicting reality or predicting our observations of ... Physics should be about understanding the ... > I'm simply trying to establish that when we speak of building models, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physics is simple...we complicate it
    ... >> mean to say reality? ... >> Whether we are predicting reality or predicting our observations of ... Physics should be about understanding the ... > I'm simply trying to establish that when we speak of building models, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physics is simple...we complicate it
    ... nightbat wrote ... >> mean to say reality? ... >> Whether we are predicting reality or predicting our observations of ... Physics should be about understanding the physical and not just ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Physics is simple...we complicate it
    ... > mean to say reality? ... > Whether we are predicting reality or predicting our observations of ... Physics should be about understanding the physical and not just ... I'm simply trying to establish that when we speak of building models, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??
    ... nightbat wrote ... >> Physics is not about reality and it NEVER has been. ... >> the invention of theories that work, because it can prove it can ...
    (sci.physics.particle)