Re: Underneath it all
Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:23:41 -0700
Massie wrote:
>
> George Andrews wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> **********************
> Thank you for your reasoned and courteous responce. Actually, I do know
> a bit of physics. Yourself?
> **
> The questions are a search for understanding and not at all a bases for
> lack of seeing the value of physics. I do not attack physics but the
> metaphysical explanatory power that is placed on it. Generally,
> physicists could care less about this attachement, but clearly, some
> will be very concerned to add the metaphysical frosting to the cake.
>
> Again, I see physics, and therefore all science, as a descriptive
> endeavor and without basic explanatory power. Physicists like the idea
> of unification. Not too long ago, two of the so-called four forces of
> physics were unified. Gravity still hangs out there as does a great
> deal of mystery arround quantum entanglement. But, lets propose that
> there is
> an equation written down from super string theory that encomposes the
> whole works, the elusive theory of everything (TOE). Have we now
> "explained everything?" Not at all. We have simply moved the mystery
> down a level, but still do not explin what holds up the TOE.
>
> Thus, I maintian that science rests on an impermeable metaphysical
> basis, and does not can cannot ultimately explain.
>
> The unflappable Richard Feynman was concerned that when the TOE is
> written down that the metaphyscists would circle the wagons and claim
> that they knew that this was how it worked all along.
>
> **
> I will be out of the country from this PM for a week and will look
> forward to responding to any posts either later today or in a week.
> **
> Bert Massie