definitions for physics, a simple question for a simple mind

I would say Physics is best described as:

"The study of cause and effect"

Anyone thinks that's way off?

Why?






..

Dear Aaron:

"Aaron" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:I3aFi.32891$[Only registered users see links. ]...

That is Science, not simply Physics.


David A. Smith

Dear Aaron:

"Aaron" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:I3aFi.32891$[Only registered users see links. ]...

That is Science, not simply Physics.


David A. Smith

Maybe it should be
"the study of cause and effect in physical systems"
it also possible to study cause and effects in example economical systems.


Aaron wrote:

Maybe it should be
"the study of cause and effect in physical systems"
it also possible to study cause and effects in example economical systems.


Aaron wrote:

"Knud Soerensen" <4tuu4k002@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:46e54250$0$21931$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity. dk...

I can't abide using the word "physic" in the the definition of physics
Whaa!! I'm a baby.

"Examining causation function C(C(X)), with recursion ending at either an
agreed upon law of reality or an accepted paradox or unknown"

Ugly definition. Maybe I should just forget about definitions.

Here is where I think I would naturally start:

[THING] <--> [QUANTITY]

In other words, once I see that there are things that are different from
eachother, that is inexorably tied with the concept of "how many" of thing.

Thus we count!

[SPACE]

Well, I can move.I'm here. If I get up and walk I'll be there. I realize
that wherever I go, there I am.

[TIME]<-->[SPEED]

We both started moving through space, but he ran and I walked. He is there
and I'm still on the way. He got there faster than me.

[DIRECTION]

Moving takes time, and the more space I cover in some amount of time means I
went faster. But I notice that whenever I am moving through space, I have
to choose where to place my foot next in order to continue the moving.
Yeah, direction is pretty obviously a thing.

*** So, I would think these are the basic obvious things that humans
instrinsically were aware of.

Did I miss any, or include something I should not have?

"Knud Soerensen" <4tuu4k002@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:46e54250$0$21931$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity. dk...

I can't abide using the word "physic" in the the definition of physics
Whaa!! I'm a baby.

"Examining causation function C(C(X)), with recursion ending at either an
agreed upon law of reality or an accepted paradox or unknown"

Ugly definition. Maybe I should just forget about definitions.

Here is where I think I would naturally start:

[THING] <--> [QUANTITY]

In other words, once I see that there are things that are different from
eachother, that is inexorably tied with the concept of "how many" of thing.

Thus we count!

[SPACE]

Well, I can move.I'm here. If I get up and walk I'll be there. I realize
that wherever I go, there I am.

[TIME]<-->[SPEED]

We both started moving through space, but he ran and I walked. He is there
and I'm still on the way. He got there faster than me.

[DIRECTION]

Moving takes time, and the more space I cover in some amount of time means I
went faster. But I notice that whenever I am moving through space, I have
to choose where to place my foot next in order to continue the moving.
Yeah, direction is pretty obviously a thing.

*** So, I would think these are the basic obvious things that humans
instrinsically were aware of.

Did I miss any, or include something I should not have?

On Sep 10, 12:54 pm, "Aaron" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Actually, I don't agree that it's a study of cause and effect. Science
in general is the study of regularities in the behavior of things. For
instance, we observe that momentum is consistently conserved in closed
system, a remarkable regularity, even though we have no idea what
momentum IS, or what CAUSES it to be conserved. We just note that it
just seems to be true that it always does.

If you get into demanding cause and effect, then you start demanding a
theory with no free parameters or choices whatsover, such that there
could be no possible way nature to be other than the way that it is.
While such a goal is a noble goal, there is nothing in science that
bears that characteristic, and there is certainly no indication that
we are any closer to realizing that than we ever were. The cause
question just shifts. We know that the speed of light is constant
because of the structure of spacetime, but that begs the question why
spacetime has the structure it has. There is no end to questions like
that.

Moreover, quantum mechanics has predicted, and experiment has
confirmed, that strict causal determinism is not strictly observed in
nature.

PD

On Sep 10, 12:54 pm, "Aaron" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Actually, I don't agree that it's a study of cause and effect. Science
in general is the study of regularities in the behavior of things. For
instance, we observe that momentum is consistently conserved in closed
system, a remarkable regularity, even though we have no idea what
momentum IS, or what CAUSES it to be conserved. We just note that it
just seems to be true that it always does.

If you get into demanding cause and effect, then you start demanding a
theory with no free parameters or choices whatsover, such that there
could be no possible way nature to be other than the way that it is.
While such a goal is a noble goal, there is nothing in science that
bears that characteristic, and there is certainly no indication that
we are any closer to realizing that than we ever were. The cause
question just shifts. We know that the speed of light is constant
because of the structure of spacetime, but that begs the question why
spacetime has the structure it has. There is no end to questions like
that.

Moreover, quantum mechanics has predicted, and experiment has
confirmed, that strict causal determinism is not strictly observed in
nature.

PD