Re: "The map is not the Territory"...
From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 07/31/04
- Next message: markd_at_toad-net.com: "Re: DR. B V RAMAN - A PROFILE"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Getting back to basics"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:21:26 GMT
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:09:14 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sheeeeesh, Bill. Perhaps a better word is fundamental.
>
> Maybe.
>
>> You can have principles that explain things and fit experiment
>> but are they really fundamental. What causes the principle of
>> least action?
>>
> Feynmans sum over history intepretaion of QM.
ROTFLMAO... Typical Bill
>> What is the physical justification for it other than experience?
>> Are you sure you just aren't taking certain principles as being
>> axiomatic?
>
> Freddi the whole purpose of my reply was to point out that Paul's
> constant hammering at explanations being physical or not relies
> on a certain interpretation of 'physical' - with that interpretation
> not necessarily being the lay one.
Hmmm, point out the 'lay' meaning you're thinking of from...
http://www.onelook.com/?w=physical&ls=a
> Now it is obvious what Paul means by physical from his writings -
> which is properties caused by an underlying medium or aether.
Not at all. By 'physical' I mean,
1 a : having material existence : perceptible, especially
through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
<everything physical is measurable by weight, motion,
and resistance -- Thomas De Quincey>
b : of or relating to material things
And or,
2. real and touchable: existing in the real material world,
rather than as an idea or notion, and able to be touched
and seen
(a.) Of or pertaining to physics, or natural philosophy;
treating of, or relating to, the causes and connections
of natural phenomena; as, physical science; physical laws
Period... Aether meets the criteria, but it certainly ISN'T the
criteria
> But that is not the usual meaning of the word as used in discussing
> physics - that meaning being dependant on context.
Are you a Lawyer??? What a weasel, the meaning changes because 'you'
want it to.
> If one were to ask for a physical explanation of Maxwell's equations
> then pointing to a lagrangian that can be used to derive it would
> suffice
No, it would NOT! Unless you can point out the processes tied to the
expressions in the Lagrangian in a causal, narrative manner.
> - and is what I meant when I gave that explanation. However if one
> asked for a physical cause - then that is another matter. Fields in
> classical EM are considered fundamental - not requiring a cause
That's a cop-out. A means of shying away from have to DEAL with what
is actually carrying the non-contact effects. The whole 'virtual' BS
is exactly that also...
> - so Paul's question of physical cause is making an assumption the
> facts do not warrant - we have zero direct evidence, classically,
> that fields depend on something deeper
Effects follow from causes (way back to the first cause). We see
exactly the very same kind of effects from more mundane action of
physical media treated in the same manner, with the very same equations.
So, you want to claim an exemption from this. On what grounds?
> - his aether. Hence the question is meaningless and I will not even
> attempt to provide an answer.
In fact, you HAVE NO viable alternative!
> Indeed the very concept of fields in EM is up for grabs as the
> references I gave makes clear - it is really something we introduce
> for the convenience of being able to apply conventional physical
> ideas such as the interpretation of conservation principles in a
> usual manner. Feynmans and Wheeler's formulation I gave the reference
> to does away with field entirely - and still has a lagrangian.
What about positing invisible Blue Faries :)
> The cost is the conservation laws that Noethers theorem implies exists
> (you know that theorem that Paul thinks is not an explanation
It's not. It's a declaration of nature's conservation.
> ... of anything or a cause or any of the other worthless adjectives he
> trots out regarding it) have an interpretation that does not conform to
> our usual ideas eg it requires effects traveling both forward and
> backward in time.
Give ONE, JUST ONE, experiment OR observation that shows evidence of
a reversal of time. That is pure, unadulterated, BullShit!!! There
IS ONLY one thing I am certain of, reversal of time is NOT possible.
> That is the real reason we introduce fields - so we have an explanation
> that conforms to our usual intuitions.
And, to match our observation of non-contact effects...
> And that is the reason Paul wants an aether - so he has an explanation
> that conforms to how he wants to view the world - it just so happens
> that that medium - the aether he want to introduce - would need properties
> quite weird indeed to account for experiments. I admit the reason I
> prefer the field framework is it allows me to look at theories in the
> way I like ...
This is quite fine. What's NOT is your continuous droning that there
exists no evidence of an aether and considering such is unfounded. I
have no problem with the concept of fields. I do have a problem with
those that cannot admit that fields behave in exactly the same manner
as a medium.
> - Paul's simply refuses to admit the reason he prefers the aether
> framework is it allows the world to be viewed in the way he likes.
> I admit the field approach has problems (eg a particles field acting
> on itself
:)
> - a problem QED removes with renormalisability)
Ah, renormalization. A fudge...
> but Paul refuses to acknowledge the problems with an aether - eg we have
> zero evidence of any phenomena whose only interpretation is the existence
> of an aether
Great, provide another process known to carries non-contact effects.
The mathematical form is identical, the process is identical, but you
want to exclude this evidence because???
> or how it melds with the other forces of nature such as the weak and
> strong forces.
The weak force conceptually isn't a problem. The strong force is a
greater challenge. And the reason is, we do not really understand this
level well, processwise. Thus the whole so-called 'cold fusion' issue.
> My view is that when and if we ever have a final theory of nature all
> these problems will disappear
Hey, we agree on something, amazing...
> - we will understand why the theory is as it is, why we should describe
> things in terms of fields or not or any of the other myriad of problems
> we currently have.
Yup, the carrier medium..., the aether will be recognized :)
Paul Stowe
- Next message: markd_at_toad-net.com: "Re: DR. B V RAMAN - A PROFILE"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Getting back to basics"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
