Hi Bert;
Massie wrote:
> > >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.
> >
Glenn wrote:
>
> > I am curious. How many physics courses have you had?
> > glenn
Bert wrote: (poetic isn't it :-) )
>
>
> In this debate I think it is valuable to work from views and expressions
> and not from points of authority. This is of course egalatarian and we
> should look beyond accepting dogma based on authority. Thus, I will
> stand on my arguements and not on my credentials.
>
> Bert Massie
It has become evident that you have not been aided by the responses to your
original and subsequent posts regarding the explanatory potency of physical
theories; I am sorry that my own attempts have failed but I did (do) enjoy the
discussion.
Glenn's questioning of your background is nor at all a question of your
authority; but of your knowledge of physics; thus it is an appropriate
question. You continue to attack physics, so you are obligated - for your own
success as well as for intelligent discussion - to "know your enemy". "It is
written" (in a Physics Today article some years ago, thereby establishing - via
antiquity - this source :-) ) that there are two ways to learn modern physics:
1) via analogy and 2) devote your life to study experimentation and physical
applications of mathematics. (paraphrase of the original :-) ) Unfortunately,
the article continues, modern physics is pregnant with un-intuitive ideas that
have NO classical analogues; hence, only the second option is left. If you are
not following the latter route (the joy is in the journey!), you are
constrained to the inadequacies of the former.
I believe, contrary to your original post, that you now see the distinction
between physics and metaphysics; however, you are still demanding a physical
response to a metaphysical question. By so doing, you are both frustrating
yourself and others in attempting an answer. I can not ask how pink was
"Stairway to Heaven" when Led Zeppelin first gave birth to rock stars? It mixes
accepted categories of language and concepts (or is that concerts? Forgive me
if you are not a "child of the 70's" as I am: just substitute a song title and
band name of your choice :-) ).
With pleasure and in Jesus our friend;
George A.
--------------BD6FBE2C1619EA0C3FBB55A9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Hi Bert;
Massie wrote:
> >Physics does not explain things without appealing to "more fundamentalGlenn wrote:
> >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.
>
Bert wrote: (poetic isn't it :-) )
> I am curious. How many physics courses have you had?
> glenn
It has become evident that you have not been aided by the responses to your original and subsequent posts regarding the explanatory potency of physical theories; I am sorry that my own attempts have failed but I did (do) enjoy the discussion.In this debate I think it is valuable to work from views and expressions
and not from points of authority. This is of course egalatarian and we
should look beyond accepting dogma based on authority. Thus, I will
stand on my arguements and not on my credentials.Bert Massie
Glenn's questioning of your background is nor at all a question of your authority; but of your knowledge of physics; thus it is an appropriate question. You continue to attack physics, so you are obligated - for your own success as well as for intelligent discussion - to "know your enemy". "It is written" (in a Physics Today article some years ago, thereby establishing - via antiquity - this source :-) ) that there are two ways to learn modern physics: 1) via analogy and 2) devote your life to study experimentation and physical applications of mathematics. (paraphrase of the original :-) ) Unfortunately, the article continues, modern physics is pregnant with un-intuitive ideas that have NO classical analogues; hence, only the second option is left. If you are not following the latter route (the joy is in the journey!), you are constrained to the inadequacies of the former.
I believe, contrary to your original post, that you now see the distinction between physics and metaphysics; however, you are still demanding a physical response to a metaphysical question. By so doing, you are both frustrating yourself and others in attempting an answer. I can not ask how pink was "Stairway to Heaven" when Led Zeppelin first gave birth to rock stars? It mixes accepted categories of language and concepts (or is that concerts? Forgive me if you are not a "child of the 70's" as I am: just substitute a song title and band name of your choice :-) ).
With pleasure and in Jesus our friend;
George A.
--------------BD6FBE2C1619EA0C3FBB55A9--