Re: Underneath it all
Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:49:47 -0400
George Murphy wrote:
>
> Massie wrote:
> >
> > Upholding the Universe:
> >
> > Physics does not explain things without appealing to "more fundamental
> > principles." Actually, physics is a system of operational definitions
> > and laws. We go from atoms to nucloens to quarks and a simular path for
> > the laws always stopping at some junction where we cannot or have not
> > been able to go more deeper. Thus, in the end physics tells how without
> > really explaining.
> >
> > When a materialist is asked what is going on the answer is that the laws
> > of physics control the action of all the parts (in a blind purposeless
> > way) and that then there were the initial conditions and thats all there
> > is. Burried in this is a major metaphysical assumption.
> >
> > What is behind the laws of physics. How do particles know to repond to
> > gravity? How did these logical rules get established and what makes
> > them work? We run out of "more fundamental" constructs at some point
> > and must appeal to metaphysics. A consequence is that we get down to
> > some kind of information and upholding of laws which has a source of
> > some kind even though we don't know what it is. All things have a
> > predecedant except that which is infinite in time. SO:
> >
> > Where did this information come from?
> >
> > What forces the "laws of physics" to exist and gives them power over
> > material substances?
> >
> > Naturalists must conceed that this power is there and that there is
> > something that makes the laws of physics work. To just say that "the
> > laws of physics just exist" is ignoring the real question which is why
> > and how. They appeal to some metaphysical entity or source to make the
> > universe work but they just will not recognize that "it" is there and
> > avoid this recognition by calling "it" the "laws of physics" and
> > appending a working rule that no one can ask why or how.
>
> Bertrand Russell dismissed such questions by saying, "The world as a whole just
> is, that's all. We start there. No one can force a scientist to go beyond that & to
> ask why anything at all exists or why the world as a whole is as it is. Within that
> framework science really can explain things "though God were not given."
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
************************
The gospel according to B. Russell and I have a quote.
Actually, no one can force anyone to do anything. This question at some
point is not even a scientific one. What I am saying is that science
cannot not really explain only describe.
This reminds my of my mother who used to get upset with by continued
unacceptance of questions which allways followed her so-called answers
and would finnaly utter "Because we adults tell you this is the way it
is."
What makes the laws of physics work?
To say that things fall because of gravity is not an explanation but a
description. Even if you talk about fields and potentials and warping
of space time you still leave the explanation in terms of something else
which in itself is left unexplained.
What science really seeks is to reduce explanations to the fewest
"fundametal" laws as possible, which when coupled with initial
conditions, give a complete complete predictive capability. OOOPS. That
computer is bigger than the universe and OOPS we have just a little
problem with quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement.
Bert Massie