Re: Things we take for granted

From: ueb (Ulrich.Bruchholz_at_t-online.de)
Date: 08/06/04 

Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:44:52 +0000

Patrick Reany wrote:
> ueb wrote in message news:<u74uec.t5.ln@Muse2.private.de>...
>> Patrick Reany wrote:
[snip]
>> > Anyway, I ask another strange question: Why does physics use the
>> > variables it uses (such as length, time, mass, and charge) rather than
>> > use other variables for the description of physical events?
>>
>> Do "physical events" not mean the combination of these variables ?
>> What variables would you propose ?

> First, I'm using the term "physical events" in the sense of physical
> values at spacetime points.

Clear.

> These events include field values and
> boolean variables such as "electron-here," "quark-here,"
> "photon-here," "mass continuum-here," etc. Obviously I'm referring to
> "physical" attributes in the purely theoretical sense, as the boolean
> variables are indicating the "theoretical objects" freely created by
> humans to make theories that work.

Your famous slogan. :):):)
I'd agree that you can add such Boolean variables to the "events".
What were the use ? Are you aware of the very different meaning
of the examples called by you ? Thus, *free* electrons and photons
really exist during quarks and the mass continuum do not and are
indeed nothing else than having been freely created by humans.

> I propose no specific alternatives to those we use. I simply see no
> compelling reason to believe that the variables we use are either True
> of Nature or unique to human possibility. The fact that I can't think
> of alternatives is not in itself proof that they don't "exist" in
> theory land or in deep reality.

The variables are indeed not unique to human possibility. But there
are indeed variables which are "True of Nature", and fundamentally
distinguish from the rest. All of them are in the Einstein-Maxwell
equations.

> One obvious possible indication to the ability to find "new" variables
> is through canonical transformations on variables in Hamiltonian
> theory. The pont I want to make here is that just because one could
> generate a new set of variables by a canonical transformation doesn't
> mean that the new set is "natural" for human use. But I'm not
> restricting consideration to algorithmically generated new variables.

Ok. There are lots of transformations, and just engineers use them.
Mostly, a new (virtual) space is introduced, for example, functions of
time are transformed to functions of frequency.

>>
>> > In other
>> > words, are the variables we now use either true of the world or are
>> > they inexplicably indispensible for doing physics correctly?
>>
>> Could you express yourself rather natural scientifically than
>> philosophically ?

> I can't. The issue here is philosophic not scientific. The question
> is, Why consider these "strange questions" in the first place? It's to
> determine the outer limits of possible human knowledge by knowing what
> possible boundary conditions exist on human theories. Just how free
> are we in the creation of human theories.

We are free as we like. The question is what has it to do with
nature.

> Those who follow Truth have a very small set of possible models they
> allow themselves to invent and use in the pursuit of Truth.

Yes, indeed.

> Those that
> pursue theories that work have a much, much larger set of models they
> allow themselves to invent.

Indeed. Humble question: How do you notice whether and how such
theory really works ?

> Which belief system is more likely to
> succeed in the end?

The second "belief system" can present lots of fictitious successes.
For that reason, a (rather seldom) success in the first is also
a real success, and unlikely more worth.
(Do you understand why people do not like to hear of the simulations
according to the Einstein-Maxwell equations ?)

Ulrich

Relevant Pages
Quantcast