Physicists Losing Their Grip??

"Mike" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1103744357.934813.229300@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

They are about science - whose basis is correspondence with experiment. If
one wishes to say such tells us about reality is a philosophical issue. I
believe it does, and I also believe most people believe it does, but the
scientific method makes not claim it does. Indeed it has often been
commented that applied scientists tend to hold to the view it does not
actually tell us about 'reality' - they are much more pragmatic in their
approach while scientists working on fundamental issues take the view it
does. Science is capable of accommodating either view.


The above would not be an interpretation right? - after all whatever you
think must be true must it not? Exactly what makes your opinion any better
than mine? In science the ultimate coin of the realm is corresponded with
experiment - if you take a position that experiment can not decide between
then it is philosophy - not science - which is my entire point.


I am glad you cleared that up for everybody. Now I do not know if
philosophers have a prize similar to the Nobel prize or the Fields Medal but
I am sure you are a shoe in for it with such an earth shattering observation
I am certain al philosphers will immediately agree with and wonder why they
never thought of it before. (1)


(1).


Not in philosophy - they can not even refute Soliphism


Science is a method for having theories in accord with experiment - the rest
is philosophical baggage.


Did I say that physics has nothing to do with reality? - I said the issue is
a philosophical one - not something science is worries about.


Those that ascribe to your views are doing a great disservice to humanity by
confusing science and philosophy.


Understand if the question can not be decided by experiment is it philosophy
and should properly be treated as such - and by most it is. That does not
mean scientists do not necessarily believe in philosophical positions such
as objective reality exists out there independent of us (myself and Weinberg
for example believe it does) - it simply means they understand since it can
not be refuted by experiment it is not a question for science.

Bill

Note Nick Herbert begins his discussing in earlier articles
from the point of view of electrons and stuff specifically
and especially their being without position and momentum
unless measured. This means they don't have objective
existence unless measured. It's like saying when you are
alone in your room and no one sees you. You don't exist physically but
as some kind of wave. This is what the
physicists are implying and not just temporary construct for
purpose of mathematics, right. Or not. When scientists work
out formulas about it. Are they just assuming it is only real
mathematically while in real world, it is not.. like one kind
of separate oneself in 2 situations. It's like believing Santa
Claus is real when doing certain calculations and when done.
Knowing Santa Claus doesn't exist. But the calculations is
assuming Santa Claus exist. So for quantum physics. Does one
believe Santa Claus exist or not. Or in other words, does
one believe the phenemonon is real objectively (electrons
literally doesn't have position unless observed) and not just
a virtual construct for purposes of mathematics. Or does one
believe it is only real when done in calculations and not real
objectively. Maybe most believe it's the former, that it's
not just a mathematical construct. If so. It's such a strange
world isn't it. Don't you feel awe sometimes by it. Or are
you so used to it that it's normal. If it's normal. Then this
world being based on strange laws is normal, right. And
because there are other weirder theories. This is what Herbert
meant when he said physicists are losing grip on reality (in a
non-offending but laconic kind of way) because there are many
theories that obviously are not just mathematical constructs).

Consc

<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1103746368.672106.264140@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

<snip>

It's more than a little too late to even consider that.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

George Bajszar wrote:


You gotta be ****ing kidding me.. you quoted 35K of stuff for a 3 line response?

Androcles wrote:

No thanks.. it wasn't interesting like Als.

nightbat wrote

"AllYou!" wrote:

nightbat

Via verifiable co peer affirmed observations and results, called
non falsified working theories and scientific evidence, the rest is
philosophy or unproved fantasy based sci fi.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote

"[Only registered users see links. ]" wrote:

nightbat

Then just try coming up with a multi peer affirmable useful one,
for a working applicable theory or model is what physics is all about,
not philosophy, religion, or no evidence fantasy based sci fi.

the nightbat

Bill Hobba wrote:
experiment. If
issue. I
the
not
their
it

Them experimenrs according to you are not part of reality, but
something else. You started with a fallacy and the rest of your post
will be just as fallacious.

you
better

The fact that you treat experiments as processes not part of reality.

between

You point is a straw man and a red herring.


the rest

Philosophy is what enables science to ask the right questions and seek
answerss.


issue is

No it is not. You are confused about the task of philosophy.



understanding
resolved
humanity by

Hey Hobba: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. It's your wake
up call.

I guess according to you, Newton did a great disservice. You know why
Newton named it like that? Because at that early stage in the
development of mechanics a big part of the job was to determine the
proper questions to ask. And Newton did ask the proper questions.

philosophy
does not
such
Weinberg
it can

The infidels of science and philosophy, like modern anti-realists, are
rensponsible for this confusion, which although you say you do not
agree with, neverthless you constantly promote in these ng's because it
seems you want to play 'trendy'.

Science does not determine what are the proper questions to ask. Tha's
the task od philosophical inquiry. Science does not try to prove the
validity of the philosophical process. The two are connected in series,
not in parallel.

While western science is immersed in self-denial of the very same
principles it is based on just to support some crackpot theories like
relativity, the east is progressing without getting confused about the
roles of science and philosophy. It is known from history that
deterioration of power involves a decline in scientific thinking, this
is also what happened to Greeks and the empire of Alexander the Great
was broken into pieces.

Everything I read along these lines you promote here while at the same
time you insist you are against showing you have a double face, it is
clear to me that western superiority in science and as a result in
economy and everything else is approaching its end fast. The reason:
the lost touch with reality and the denial of the immediately given and
the effort to promote a superiority of the mind world. To me, this is
how future slaves think.

The result is that unless there is a gigantic effort to clean the
garbage sick minds have proliferated science with and to return to the
proper tasks of philosophy and science, the west is doomed to be
enslaved by the east which has retained the golden dichotomy between
mind and matter, that is between philosophical inquiry and reality of
what exists.

But unfortunately, it seems that falling and rise of empires is a
natural phenomenon, and reversing its course wan never achieved in the
history of mankind by any means. The process is irreversible. Some of
the people you admire gained their fame by jeoperdizing the feature of
science. The style of thinking they imposed completely skrewed up the
capability for a recovery. By those I mean your friend Dr. AL and the
Copenhagen anti-realists and all the followers thereof.

Still, I have some hope that the 'beast' inside west can 'wake up' and
do somthing before we end up working for 25 year old Chineese who eat
frog legs for breakfast.

Mike

"Mike" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1103795449.444477.17950@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...



Perhaps you would say a bit more about your take on the Copenhagen school,
for example, whether it may have been at least unwinding from "absolutist
notions", and may I say, making progress towards "value, through, and indeed
as, relationship' of forces', indefinite, dynamic and inferentially
multi-faceted"?

--
Peter Kinane
[Only registered users see links. ]

<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1103757401.029752.61580@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

As soon as you tell me what you mean by *physical*, I'll tell you if it's needed in
physics. In fact, as soon as you can tell me what you mean by physics, I'll tell you why
it's needed.

We're all waiting.

We're also waiting for a definition of some new words you invented like P-theory and
physicaltheory. What's the matter.......cat got your tongue?


*time a runners time* LOL!

Physical is physical.


And that's where you continue to make a fool of yourself. I've never shared my views on
reality with you. This is a physics NG, not a philosophical one. And how can you know
that I'm wrong about physicality when you have no idea what it means? If you did, you've
be willing to share it with us.


No shit. Where did you ever come to the completely misguided conclusion that I thought it
was? Oh......that's right......you've decided that I belong to a group and that group
believes that against which you argue. Hmmmmmm. an argument all made up and no one
against whom to use it. Kinda like getting dressed and no where to go, huh?


Now that you've made up a new word for all of us, you've got no choice but to tell us what
it means. We're all waiting! Tell us what *P-content* means. LOL! I've got you reduced
to making up shit just to avaoid being pinned down to your failed and empty arguments.


No, you're the one that used the term so I want you to tell us all what you mean by it.
"Physics is not about reality and it NEVER has been. Physics is about the invention of
theories that work, because it can prove it can accomplish that much."

So in the context of that claim, what do you mean by proven?


But you do claim that they can be proven. So what do you mean by proven? You've got
yourself so twisted around with one foot in a conventional, physical world and the other
in this mystical, never, never land that even you can't figure out what you believe.