Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Alessandro Loesch Jannuzzi (alessandro.loesch_at_gmail.com)
Date: 02/11/05
- Next message: ruko: "Re: Science on Radio"
- Previous message: Ben Rudiak-Gould: "Re: The formal mathematical disproof of relativity - by Androcles"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 10 Feb 2005 17:30:53 -0800
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@cornell.edu> wrote in message news:<MPG.1c757c9cfb0e7c599896d8@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
> robert j. kolker said:
> >
> >
> > Albert wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Reality is not based on axioms, but rather physical laws.
> >
> > Physical laws are human artifacts which are used to define the physical
> > world in which we live. Reality just is. There are no laws other than
> > what we prescribe to make sense out of what we perceive and experience.
> >
> > Bob Kolker
> >
> So, there are no rules that govern the universe, except in our minds?
> Before people, the universe wasn't consistently behaving according to
> rules that govern the interactions between entities in it?
Let me see if I get it right. Bob, Albert, help me here if needed, ok
?
Nature was there, being nature since "fiat lux" and behaving like
always.
As we were not there, it is quite an absurd discuss rules, because it
is a human construction. Reality has facts, the only non-human element
as far as we can say. The interpretation of these facts is a
first-level abstraction that may or may not create rules if logically
concateneted with other interpretations. This process takes place on
the unique scenario this can happen: the human mind. We observe
nature, use math to work with them more efficiently, test the results
by experimentation and produce science.
We put science on our glasses and look at the world again. Now with an
accurate vision. But nature still only has facts. The model is inside
our head.
Regards,
Alessandro.
Reality just
> "was" until we started applying math to it? Pretty magical....and
> ridiculous. Why do mathematicians want to own math? It's like saying
> Columbus invented America.
- Next message: ruko: "Re: Science on Radio"
- Previous message: Ben Rudiak-Gould: "Re: The formal mathematical disproof of relativity - by Androcles"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|