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.
**************************
My issue is not a confusion of physics and metaphysics. Your issue
should not be asking me to pass some kind of litmus test of training to
ask the question. Keep in mind that Gould would have Johnson shut up
because he is not "properly" trained as an evolutionary paleontologist.
My point again is that physical explanations seek to "explain" by
appealing to more and more basic "laws' or physical "things." From this
I point out that much metaphysical debate has centered arround origins.
Little has been focused on the metaphysical underpinning of what is
happening today as opposed to the time of origins. I say therefore that
physics really is about descriptions and cannot ultimately explain. The
final question is this:
In this space " " someone writes down the theory
of everything.
Now, I say explain this. What makes this work, or if you prefer, "What
holds up the processes of the universe.?" This leads us to recognition
of a metaphysical point that science cannot ultimately explain and that
something outside of accessable physical entities is making all of this
exist.
Bert M.
>
>
>
>
--------------D6A2C0651512A0C02C4F7872
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
George Andrews wrote:
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?
> glennIt 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.
**************************
My issue is not a confusion of physics and metaphysics. Your
issue should not be asking me to pass some kind of litmus test of
training to ask the question. Keep in mind that Gould would have
Johnson shut up because he is not "properly" trained as an evolutionary
paleontologist.
My point again is that physical explanations seek to "explain" by appealing to more and more basic "laws' or physical "things." From this I point out that much metaphysical debate has centered arround origins. Little has been focused on the metaphysical underpinning of what is happening today as opposed to the time of origins. I say therefore that physics really is about descriptions and cannot ultimately explain. The final question is this:
In this space " " someone writes down the theory of everything.
Now, I say explain this. What makes this work, or if you prefer, "What holds up the processes of the universe.?" This leads us to recognition of a metaphysical point that science cannot ultimately explain and that something outside of accessable physical entities is making all of this exist.
Bert M.
--------------D6A2C0651512A0C02C4F7872--