Re: The Fundamental Difference Between Mathematicians and Physicists
From: Philip Holman (namlohip_at_comcast.net)
Date: 12/30/04
- Next message: Gactimus: "Bush accused of undermining the UN with aid coalition"
- Previous message: George Cox: "Re: Two Questions from Non-member"
- Maybe in reply to: Eugene Shubert: "The Fundamental Difference Between Mathematicians and Physicists"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:13:10 -0800
<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1104441917.690504.168010@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Philip Holman wrote:
>> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1104428658.724392.314950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Philip Holman wrote:
>> >> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
>> >> news:1104301331.321494.255860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Philip Holman wrote:
>> >> >> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1104239513.778012.257890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> >> > Does a physical theory tell us the way the world really is as
> a
>> >> >> > "thing"
>> >> >> > and/or process? Or does it merely describe the behavior of
> the
>> >> >> > physical
>> >> >> > system through the artifice of measurements and their
>> >> >> > interrelationships?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Physics - a science that deals with matter and energy and their
>> >> >> interactions. This is only a part of the whole picture. If you
> are
>> >> >> looking for a complete description of "things" then physics is
>> >> > limited.
>> >> >
>> >> > That misses the point. If physics could provide a complete
>> > description
>> >> > of phenomena, would that be total "reality"?
>> >>
>> >> No. My point is that physics only deals with a subset of reality.
>> >
>> > Ok. I agree.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > BTW, I could define (or characterize) baking as - a science that
>> > deals
>> >> > with matter and energy and their interactions, or firefighting -
> a
>> >> > science that deals with matter and energy and their
> interactions. I
>> >> > think a better definition is in order for physics.
>> >>
>> >> If you apply the description to the topics covered in physics the
>> >> definition is good enough. Why the need for a more complicated
>> >> definition?
>> >
>> > Physics is the search for the smallest set of rules which provides
> a
>> > complete description of the behavior of the inanimate material
> realm
>> > under natural conditions.
>>
>> I'm being picky on you use of the word inanimate. Is there another
> set
>> of rules for bio-mechanics?
>
> Well, I'm not referring to the mechanics of how muscles and bones
> work.
>
>>
>> Phil H
>
> Phil, everyone challenges me on the inclusion of that word, but as yet
> no one has told me how physics is at this time ready to explain
> biological behavior in terms of the basic laws of physics. I should be
> happy to drop the inclusion of the word "inanimate" when we can do
> that.
It doesn't have to be just a biological consideration. The design of
seat belts and the study of kinematics in sports both deal with the
behavior of anatomies in motion using the same rules for inanimate
objects. In bio-mechanics I can think of lots of examples. The viscous
drag of musculature being one.
>
> They also challenge me on the inclusion of the phrase "under natural
> conditions."
No problem.
Phil H
- Next message: Gactimus: "Bush accused of undermining the UN with aid coalition"
- Previous message: George Cox: "Re: Two Questions from Non-member"
- Maybe in reply to: Eugene Shubert: "The Fundamental Difference Between Mathematicians and Physicists"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
