Re: Why a Problem?

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> In <1125972649.018487.115210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> O'Barr comments:
> Do not play games! I asked you if you were able
> to see and understood the points being made.

What is there to understand? It's obvious that you
believe in mechanistic philosophy and that I believe
in Shubertian philosophy.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/997d9bda45689959

> O'Barr comments:
> I certainly have a theory
> that includes a very simple 'mechanical' approach, a
> physical approach, an approach that has causes and
> effects, an approach that can be visualized and
> conceptualized and logically considered and used to
> formulate in our minds what our reality is all about.

Indeed, but what new axioms do you have from the
ancient presupposition of mechanistic philosophy
and what can you prove with those new axioms?

> Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >The philosophy of physics is in the math. There's
> >no separate place for it:
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Philosophy can be everywhere, where there is
> meaningful support to the base of a theory. If all
> you have is a math theory, then if there is any
> philosophy to the theory, then it would have to be in
> the math. But if you have a physical theory, then
> the philosophy would have to be in the physical base
> to the theory. You are dumb to say what you said
> above!

Determinism should be inherent in the equations of
physics if they were all formulated from a mechanistic
philosophy.

> Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >"Philosophy is written in this grand book, the
> >universe, ... But the book cannot be understood
> >unless one first learns to comprehend the language
> >and read the characters in which it is written. It
> >is written in the language of mathematics."
> >- Galileo Galilei.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> For some of us, we are only
> mathematicians, and for those with such limitations,
> we can only understand any existing philosophy only
> after it is reduced to math. Sorry about your sorry
> state, but that is what is being said above, and I
> agree! You are a hopeless case of being just a
> mathematician!

It's just a matter of a useful definition of physics.
There are reasons to separate clear well-defined
thinking and physics from useless mumbo-jumbo mysticism.

> > O'Barr (globarr) comments: . . .
> >> I see! You do not care to know or understand
> >> anything about what physically occurs? You do not
> >> care to know why c is a physical constant? You do
> >> not really care if there really is a 4-D or just a
> >> 3-D? All you care about is just getting the math
> >> answers?
>
> Perspicacious wrote:
> >Essentially, yes.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Yes, at least you are an honest mathematician.
> All you care about is having the correct math
> answers!

Actually, my primary interest is in studying the
mathematical basics of many distinct models. The
importance of math models generating accurate
predictions I think of as coming in second. I
have no interest in studying inconsistent physical
theories.

> Knowing the actual cause or meaning to the
> answer is beyond your interest or capabilities!

I already know the actual cause and meaning but
there are good reasons in a pluralistic society
to always distinguish between physics and religious
philosophy.

> Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >What's the value of untestable philosophy?
> >How could mathematically unquantifiable personal
> >speculations mean anything objectively? As I see it,
> >the value of any physical philosophy can only be
> >measured by the physics it generates. I, therefore,
> >have adopted a pragmatic definition of physics:
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Yes, you have adopted something that is not
> physics. You have ran away from the physics. All
> you want is math, so that you can feel good about it.
> But this is wrong, and we will eventually get the
> physics back into our physics where it belongs!

There is already too much of your physics in physics.
I agree with Hilbert that physics should be axiomatized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_sixth_problem

> Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >"Physics is the mathematical study of all
> >conceivable universes. A universe is a mathematical
> >model that describes spacetime, matter, energy and
> >their interactions.

> Look at your childish and stupid comments above:
> You say that physics is the mathematical study of all
> conceivable universes. What rot!

So you think that David Hilbert was childish and stupid?

> If any thinking person were given your words
> above, they would throw up (puke, vomit,
> regurgitate)! You sound like you are crazy, insane,
> saying things just to hear yourself talk. Your words
> have no logic, no common sense, no anything that
> would allow anyone to think that you have any
> thinking going on in your mind. It sounds like you
> have become crazy, thinking that you are living in
> some 5th dimension, in some non-normal world.

David Hilbert is respected by mathematicians and
physicists the world over. Who do you think created
general relativity for Einstein out of the axioms
that Einstein wanted?

.

Quantcast