Re: Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?

reany_at_asu.edu
Date: 01/19/05 

Date: 19 Jan 2005 13:24:03 -0800

AllYou! wrote:
> "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
> news:a8zGd.146489$48.71296@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1105889348.242434.42100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Androcles wrote:
> > >> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > >> news:1105846187.721920.196850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >> >
> > >> > Androcles wrote:
> > >> >> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:1105819627.457138.33760@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >> >> >
> > >> > [snip]
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> That is my point.
> > >> >> >> Physics, as with any science, begins with observation,
> > >> >> >> investigates (experiments if you like) and explains the
> > >> > observation.
> > >> >> >> Idle speculation about what might be isn't physics at all,
it
> > >> > isn't
> > >> >> >> even science.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > How does one distinguish idle from non-idle speculation?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> At it again, Reany? Always with the idle questions you
> > >> >> can figure out the answer to for yourself, if you only tried.
> > >> >> Androcles.
> > >> > You're the one who introduced the term, not me. Hypocrite.
> > >> >
> > >> You really are as thick as two short planks, Reany.
> > >>
> > >> Tell ya what.
> > >>
> > >> If you OBSERVE some phemonenon you do not understand,
> > >> come and talk to me about it, we'll try to figure it out.
> > >
> > > I don't understand the phemonenon of inveterate ignorance of
people
> > > who
> > > should know better, like you and Bilge. But let's not even go
there.
> > >
> > Since you raised the issue, inveterate ignorance is all yours.
> >
> > >>
> > >> If you IMAGINE some phenomenon you do not understand,
> > >> take it elsewhere, I'm not interested in your imagination.
> > >
> > > But I am very interested in your reasoning processes!
> >
> > It is called "logical deduction". We see something and try to
> > explain it.
> > AllYou! IMAGINED something and tried explain it.
>
> Not true. I observed that community of scientist have claimed the
existence of time
> without ever having observed it.

The "existence" of time in physics is not metaphysical; it is
semantical. It all depends on which theory you hold to. If someone
wants to claim that he or she "observes time," how the hell do you
propose to prove that they aren't? Their claim is every bit as valid as
yours!

> Once again, you have it backward. Tell me how you've
> ever observed time.

It's the damn theory that tell you what does "exist" and what you can
observe. How many times do I have to tell you that? Physics is NOT
metaphysics!

Patrick

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Vatican Declares ToE Compatible With Christianity
    ... about what some historical figure did are not metaphysics. ... But theists start from a different axiom. ... In order to believe in miracles and still do science, ... Matthew 7:7-11 unless of course somebody observes you as you try to get rid ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The models one builds exist in physics in theoryland
    ... > AllYou! ... The models one builds exist in physics in theoryland. ... >> That's not deeper. ... Anything deeper is metaphysics, not physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast