--------------DF704403E7B38679CC380F90
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Bert;
> George Andrews wrote:
>> 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 :-) ).
>>
>
mrlab wrote:
> *************************
> 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.
>
I agree with you that knowledge of a subject can be gleaned through
different modes-- including being "self taught"; however, it is only
through various and sundry "litmus tests" ( I am about to take two weeks
of tests for my Ph.D. qualifying exam this August!!!!) that we who are
researchers/educators can assertion whether or not the materiel is
adequately mastered. Please -- nobody wants you or others of different
persuasions to "shut up" (well, maybe in some instances :-) ) but to
simply "get it right" and join to the discussion.
>
> 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.
Forgive me, for I mean no offense; but I see nothing but categorical
convolutions in your questioning -- despite your denial of such
confusion in the opening sentence of this post. As evidence, just look
at your closing statement:
"This leads us to recognition of a metaphysical point that science
cannot ultimately explain and that something outside of accessible
physical entities is making all of this exist."
Unless I misunderstand your syntax, you plainly ask "science" to
"ultimately explain" a "metaphysical point"! I agree, science cannot
"ultimately explain" ANYTHING "outside of accessible physical
entities" -- by definition! But your original contention had been that
physics can not explain anything; which is incorrect.
Perhaps your original example of gravity would serve us again. What is
wrong with these explanations: gravity is a force that acts between
physically real objects possessing the physical measurable concepts
known as mass and electromagnetic phenomena ( photons) by either 1) an
exchange of other particles known as gravitons which thereby impart
force or 2) a curvature of the space-time continuum which is not a force
but a constraint? While these explanations are in tension with each
other -- they are explanations non the least.
If you really want to have some fun, here is the physical rival for "God
did it" that fills in you "space" above: other -- in fact an infinite
number of other -- "failed" universes "did it" via quantum tunneling of
information into our universes instructing it to get the fundamental
constants right so that life may evolve -- by chance of course! How is
that for metaphysical physics!!!!!!!! :-)
Best regards;
George A.
--------------DF704403E7B38679CC380F90
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Hi Bert;
George Andrews wrote:
mrlab wrote: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 :-) ).
*************************I agree with you that knowledge of a subject can be gleaned through different modes-- including being "self taught"; however, it is only through various and sundry "litmus tests" ( I am about to take two weeks of tests for my Ph.D. qualifying exam this August!!!!) that we who are researchers/educators can assertion whether or not the materiel is adequately mastered. Please -- nobody wants you or others of different persuasions to "shut up" (well, maybe in some instances :-) ) but to simply "get it right" and join to the discussion.
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.
Forgive me, for I mean no offense; but I see nothing but categorical
convolutions in your questioning -- despite your denial of such confusion
in the opening sentence of this post. As evidence, just look at your closing
statement:
"This leads us to recognition of a metaphysical point that science cannot ultimately explain and that something outside of accessible physical entities is making all of this exist."
Unless I misunderstand your syntax, you plainly ask "science" to "ultimately explain" a "metaphysical point"! I agree, science cannot "ultimately explain" ANYTHING "outside of accessible physical entities" -- by definition! But your original contention had been that physics can not explain anything; which is incorrect.
Perhaps your original example of gravity would serve us again. What is wrong with these explanations: gravity is a force that acts between physically real objects possessing the physical measurable concepts known as mass and electromagnetic phenomena ( photons) by either 1) an exchange of other particles known as gravitons which thereby impart force or 2) a curvature of the space-time continuum which is not a force but a constraint? While these explanations are in tension with each other -- they are explanations non the least.
If you really want to have some fun, here is the physical rival for "God did it" that fills in you "space" above: other -- in fact an infinite number of other -- "failed" universes "did it" via quantum tunneling of information into our universes instructing it to get the fundamental constants right so that life may evolve -- by chance of course! How is that for metaphysical physics!!!!!!!! :-)
Best regards;
George A.
--------------DF704403E7B38679CC380F90--
--------------508606C7B3E2314001E0A077
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="gandrews.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for George Andrews
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="gandrews.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Andrews Jr.;George
tel;home:757 565 2890
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:College of William & Mary;Department of Applied Sciences
adr:;;;Williamsburg;VA;23188;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:gandrews@as.wm.edu
title:Graduate Student
fn:George A. Andrews Jr.
end:vcard
--------------508606C7B3E2314001E0A077--