Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations

reany_at_asu.edu
Date: 03/08/05 

Date: 8 Mar 2005 07:01:17 -0800

jem wrote:
> AllYou! wrote:
> > "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:tVYWd.97132$bu.84471@fed1read06...
>
> >>Limiting the "objects of interest" to measurements is sufficient to
> >>ensure we don't confuse ourselves.
>
> > There are two subjects being coverd in these exchanges. The first
has to do with
> > physicallity. I've read what you've said, not only in this note,
but in previous ones,
> > and my comments are as follows.
> >
> > First, there's the issue of semantics. You've defined reality as
observations, no matter
> > that observations can be misleading and inaccurate. I gave the
example about how Newton
> > believed that his laws and his observations described reality when
we now know they did
> > not. Clearly, this shows that there was only one reality, and
Newton had it wrong. By
> > your definition of reality, what Newton observed was reality then,
but now there's a
> > different one. You made this clear when you said that reality
isn't static. Well, IMO,
> > that's exactly wrong. There is only one reality and the fact that
our view of it keeps
> > changing simply points to why any discussion of reality has no
place in physics. All we
> > can do is make observations and build a model of what we believe
represents reality on the
> > basis of these observations.
> >
> > And so, of what does the model consist? to answer that, we must
understand the point of
> > physics. The point is to understand that which affects us. We
crawled out from under the
> > rocks trying to figure that out, and we still do today. According
to you, the model
> > consists just of measurements. OK, I can accept that with the
qualification that because
> > the measurements are the results of predictions (i.e., theories),
that it's more accurate
> > to say that the model consists of theories whose relative
reliability has been
> > demonstrated through tests (i.e., measurements) of those theories.
> >
> > But this leaves a big hole if we're to remain true to the goal. We
then look at the model
> > we've built and sue it to answer the questions as to why it
operates as it does. IOW, we
> > also build concepts of the *real* or Natural phenomena which cause
this model to behave as
> > it does. Implicit in this is the notion that these phenomena would
exist whether or not
> > man did. And so a good question to ask ourselves whenever we build
these concepts is
> > whether or not the phenomenon which we've built to address the
questions of *how* and
> > *what* would exist withiout us.
> >
> > Another great question we much answer is that if this model of
Nature consists of
> > measurements, then measurements of what? IMO, it's not sufficient
to say that the goal of
> > physics stops at accumulating data. The central reason we
accumulate such data is to
> > understand more about something. If you've answered this question,
I missed it, but why
> > do we accumulate this data? Why do we build the model? Who cares
that we have a bunch of
> > numbers? Are these numbers ever used for practical purposes?
> >
> > This question of *how* or *what* is crucial, because the whole goal
of science is to
> > answer these questions. And if we believe that we've answer it in
some case, we move on
> > to the next. However, if we have this belief in error, then we've
added that concept of a
> > phenomenon to our grand concept of Nature erroneously.
> >
> > In that vein, I've seen no evidence that either space, or time, or
spacetime is physical.
> > I see that predictions will be made of how a mechanism will react
if sent on a trip, and
> > that fits perfectly with the model, but I don't see that we can
answer the question of how
> > with the notion of spacetime until we can demonstrate that either
space or time exists as
> > Natural phenomena.
>
> >>Just look up the word "counting" for crying out loud. You won't
find
> >>any requirements for what the counter needs to understand about the
> >>results obtained. I've said all I intend to on this matter-of-fact
subject.
>
> > As I've said and which you cannot deny, this issue came up between
us in the context of
> > quantification. In that context, the definition of count is:
> > "To name or list (the units of a group or collection) one by one in
order to determine a
> > total; number."
> >
> > Quantification is an intellectual process, is it not?
> >
> > You know, you and your buddies are the ones who accuse me of being
bigoted in my beliefs.
> > You say that I simply won't listen to explanations, and that I
won't admit errors in my
> > positions. Yet, my posts are replete with just those kinds of
changes and admissions when
> > I've been convinced with logical and reasonable arguments. That's
not to say that I still
> > don't have a way to go, but it does demonstrate that I'm willing to
listen, consider, and
> > change. And I'm also willing to agree to disagree.
> >
> > But just take this discussion of counting. I've quite clearly made
my case, yet not only
> > do *you* refuse to acknowledge my arguments, but you keep trying to
shift the focus of the
> > debate to just labeling when you know that we used that term in the
context of
> > quantification, and you know that quantification is an intellectual
process.
>
> First off, for "quantification/counting" as for "time", there is no
> "case to made" - the issue is simply a matter of definition. For
some
> reason, you find it inordinately difficult to grasp that a definition
is
> just an arbitrary substitution of one word/phrase for another - there

> isn't any context for argument (outside of linguistics, which isn't
of
> concern here).
>
> Secondly, if you want to continue this discussion, I want you to
address
> the specific comments in my prior post. I don't intend to allow you
to
> skip over them and start a new discussion where I'll have to repeat
> everything yet again. Your attempts in this post, to recount what
I've
> said, are so far off the mark that it seems I may just as well have
been
> talking to a wall.
>
> If you choose not to continue, here's a final thought. The
> epistemology of Physics is the result of a long evolutionary process
> that's had the participation of many of the world's greatest
thinkers.
> You'd do well to *presume* it's your ideas that are inferior when
> they're at odds with convention.

One of the signs of a great thinker is that he or she loves to read the
thoughts of greater thinkers raher than try to re-invent and change
everything on the assumption that ONLY he or she can possibly get it
right. So, Jem, in this case, don't hold your breath waiting for
AllYou! to finally do his philosophical homework before he mouths off
here.

I told AllYou! long ago to read up on logical positivism as just some
related background information but he refused to do so.

Patrick

Relevant Pages