Re: Baby talk and prejudices about absolute time and determinism

From: Ben Rudiak-Gould (br276deleteme_at_cam.ac.uk)
Date: 03/23/05 

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:31:27 +0000

PD wrote:
> I would venture that such behavioral "hardwiring" is also responsible,
> at least in part, to elements of physical "intuition" that cause
> novices so much grief when they are confronted with some of the tenets
> of modern physics, particularly the relativity of space, time, and
> simultaneity and the abandonment of strict determinism in quantum
> mechanics.

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your claim. You seem to be saying,
above, that certain elements of classical physics are hardwired in the
brain. I certainly think this is true of Euclidean geometry, at least. But
then you say

> The prejudices to the contrary may be a *learned*
> perspective on the world, and -- even more problematically -- may be
> inculcated in us as teachers of our children. We may pervade these
> notions instinctively as insurance of better survival probabilities of
> our offspring, even though those prejudices may have no direct bearing
> on the true, innate properties of the universe.

Now you seem to be saying that Euclidean geometry (etc.) is *not* innate,
but the urge to teach it *is* -- which strikes me as ridiculous.

> This may also explain
> why so many of the posters here have a gut-level "can't be!" reaction
> to relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, and so on.

The thing is that relativity, as it's often taught, really can't be. What
I'm talking about is the model epitomized by the "City Speed Limit" chapter
of _Mr Tompkins in Wonderland_. It's easy to come up with internal
contradictions in that kind of model, if you take it at face value. That's
not true of the usual teaching of Newtonian concepts. So I really think it's
the teaching of relativity that's at fault, not what leads up to it.

-- Ben

Relevant Pages