 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / December 2004The Fundamental Difference Between Mathematicians and Physicists
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrncsss81.ni.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net... > Eugene Shubert: > >"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message > >news:slrncsrp8c.uju.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net... > >> Eugene Shubert: > >> >"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message > >> >news:slrncsmqas.evp.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net... > >> > > >> >> What you seem to forget, is that scientific publication in the > >> >> past catered even more to those who were well-known and > >>>> was even more restricted to those who weren't than you seem > >>>> to think it is now. In the past, one usually needed some well- > >>>> known individual to recommend publication before anyone else > >>>> would even consider it. > >> > > >> > The same level of bigotry exists today. It has merely taken on > >> > new disguises and has grown enormously in extent and intensity. > >> > >> When you write something scientific and have it rejected, > >> let me know and we can discuss it. > > > >Only mathematicians are qualified to judge my scientific work. > > Then go post in a math newsgroup. Mathematicians are not interested in the foundations of physics. They don't understand the religious devotion given to special relativity. They think of special relativity as complex numbered arithmetic. I understand the religious attachment that many have for cargo cult physics and I have tried to demystify the subject. The problem is that I'm too irreverent and irreligious for physicists yet too interested in physical mathematics for the vast majority of mathematicians. I don't really belong in either newsgroup. > >That's not you. You have proven your confusion over high school > >math and physics. > > Why don't you go whine on a math newsgroup about it? Or did they > tell you go away, too? sci.math isn't for whining. sci.physics.relativity is for whining. You know that I've used the mathematical expertise at sci.math to definitively settle the confusion that arrogant physicists have displayed in elementary mathematics. Mathematicians use reason. Mathematicians respect consistent axiom sets. Mathematicians argue mathematically. The physics types around here rely on the tactic that if you throw enough mud at your opponent then some of it is bound to stick. Eugene Shubert http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf > [...] You attempt to apply a binary demarcation on a continuum. There is no sharp boundary between math and physics, and even less of one between mathematicians and physicists. In fact, every physicist MUST put on a mathematician's hat once in awhile.... Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com >> [...] > > You attempt to apply a binary demarcation on a continuum. There is no > sharp boundary between math and physics, and even less of one between > mathematicians and physicists. In fact, every physicist MUST put on a > mathematician's hat once in awhile.... A physicist will use mathematics as a tool, in that when you arrive at a set differential equations, he will say, it's in the form of so and so type of equation therefore, it has this type of solution (for instance, he may have a set of differential equations which yields an specialised bessel function). A mathematician on the other hand will try and solve the Diff Eq to reach the solution. The mathematician's hat for the physicist is in being to arrange his equations to become certain solutions, then look up something which fits in Abramovitch and Stegun's Handbook of Mathematical Formulae. Dyl. > >> [...] Both groups are useless without powerful tools of abstraction and both groups are useless when they misuse or misrepresent the tools of abstraction. You'd easier find a freckle out of place on a pair of identical twins but suppose even those manange to blame each other now and again. We are just about to find out "big time" what happens when people focus on their differences instead of their commonality... might be a good subject for a physical and a mathematical model. The best time time to plant an oak tree is 25 years ago. The second best time is tomorrow. Sue... Dylan Sung: >>> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >A physicist will use mathematics as a tool, in that when you arrive at a set >differential equations, Note that ed witten, who is a physicist, has a fields medal, which is the equivalent of a nobel prize in mathematics. > he will say, it's in the form of so and so type of >equation therefore, it has this type of solution (for instance, he may have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >to arrange his equations to become certain solutions, then look up something >which fits in Abramovitch and Stegun's Handbook of Mathematical Formulae. That description doesn't describe either a mathematician or a physicist. Physicists do use mathematics as tools, but often the mathematics needed doesn't exist or isn't very well developed. In that case physicists develop the mathematics (heisenberg algebra, dirac delta function, field theory, etc.). The difference between a physicist and a mathematician is that a physicist is interested in mathematics that applies to physical questions and mathematicians are generally more interested in proving the properties of the mathematics, independent of any potential application to physics. To the extent that those two interests overlap, physics and mathematics overlap. The famous geometrist, the late Prof. Grueb, of the U of T and I had some excellent discussions, and he certainly was to find out how narrow my mind was. I had prepared an argument based on the covariant derivative of the metric (g_uv;w=0), thinking that's a mathematical absolute, oops...no it's not in math/geometry, it's a physical assumption! Mathematicians seem better able to question assumptions compared to physicists, IMHO, and catagorize limitations by boundaries and conditions. I imagine if Baez was a hardware store owner, he'd have a separate bin for every little bit, but from time to time mix them a little just to test groupoids! Ken Ken S. Tucker: >Mathematicians seem better able to question assumptions >compared to physicists, IMHO, and catagorize limitations by >boundaries and conditions. Mathenaticians are interested in things like existence and uniqueness of solutions. Physicists are interested in whether the solutions describe reality. that might be right but ........ one of the main differences (imho) between mathematics and physics is that even if you suceed to formulate a physics phenomenon- mathematically- the limits of the mathematical formula (or equations) are not as the physical limits!! to find the physics limits is the job of the physicist!! unfortunately too many 'mathematician physicists' that consider themselves proper physicists have the physics skills to notice those differences in limits (mathematical and physical) bottom line it is hard to expect that a person why his main training is mathematics can be a leader in physics (and too many of those guys do not realise that handicap of themselves which leads of too arrogant expectations and presentation- of themselves.) those 'mathematics physicists can only in most cases be just a help for it if you like- an example: we have the Maxwell equations now the first kind of physicste i mentioned will bet their had that those equations are 'limitless' while the real physicist will realise that those equations has much limited limits in physics reality than in mathematics reality. ------------- Y.Porat ------------------ (Humor) The Fundamental Difference Between Mathematicians and Physicists (?) Mathematicians are utterly divorced from reality. (End Humor) > (Humor) > > The Fundamental Difference Between Mathematicians and Physicists > (?) > > Mathematicians are utterly divorced from reality. Hardy thought so and was dismayed to find the pure mathematics he invented and thought devoid of any actual use had application. But that just seems to be the way of it - applied mathematicians discover mathematics interesting to pure mathematicians while pure mathematicians seem to find mathematics just right for applications. Thanks Bill > (Humor) > > The Fundamental Difference Between Mathematicians and Physicists > (?) > Mathematicians are utterly divorced from reality. What's so funny? Of course they are. Mathematicians quite happily deal in Klein bottles, Moebius strips, n-dimensional vector spaces, etc.. Flight simulators are used to train and check airline pilots in a virtual world where engines catch fire, instruments fail, other aircraft are on collision course etc.. The difference between a mathematician and a theoretical physicist is that a mathematician knows the difference. Androcles. [snip crap] Nothing. Spewing idiot. Mathematics is self-consistent. Science is self-consistent, empirically validated, and not empirically falsified - not even once. Squeezing a pimple is mathematics. Having it pop and hit the mirror is science. Idiot.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf > [snip crap] > Nothing. > > Spewing idiot. Mathematics is self-consistent. Schwartz is here right. Time is not a vector, it has no additive inverse. > Science is > self-consistent, empirically validated, and not empirically falsified > - not even once. Schwartz is now a spewing imbecile, MMX is the example of theory being falsified, empirically, and demonstrates the empirical falsification of Schwartzfification. Squeezing a pimple is mathematics. Having it pop > and hit the mirror is science. Idiot. Schwartz is now back arsewards. Squeezing a pimple is his pathetic teenge mentality. Predicting the outcome is mathematics. Androcles. > > [snip crap] > > Nothing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Schwartz is here right. > Time is not a vector, it has no additive inverse. [snip] Idiot. Anti-particles. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf >> > [snip crap] >> > Nothing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Idiot. Anti-particles. LOL.... Now I know the moron is stark raving mad. Gotta snip what you have no answer for, f.cking stooopid coward Schwartzfification. Androcles Eugene Shubert: >> Eugene Shubert: >> >> Eugene Shubert: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Mathematicians are not interested in the foundations of physics. Since you aren't interested in physics at all and call yourself a mathematican, what's your point? Go whine about physicists on a mathematics newsgroup. >They don't understand the religious devotion given to special relativity. Your perception of relativity is due to naivete. In real life, physicists use special relativity the same way they use newtonian mechanics. It's old physics and whatever interest it holds for physicists today lies outside the regime of physics in which special relativity applies. >They think of special relativity as complex numbered arithmetic. I Last time I checked, special relativity was formulated on a real manifold and the formulation in terms of ict was due to minkowski, who was a mathematician. >understand the religious attachment that many have for cargo cult >physics and I have tried to demystify the subject. Only because you seem mystified by it. In real life, I've never encountered the extent of the misconceptions you and few others on this newsgroup exhibit. As far as I can tell, you wouldn't even be able to connect the physics of relativity to any real experiment. >The problem is that >I'm too irreverent and irreligious for physicists yet too interested >in physical mathematics for the vast majority of mathematicians. I >don't really belong in either newsgroup. The problem is that refuse to believe you have major misconceptions. The fact is, you have difficulty with what constitutes about two or three weeks worth of material in the average physics curriculum. Maybe less, since in that two or three weeks, the typical physics student would have been assigned homework in which he/she would have to apply relativity to a physical problem. >> >That's not you. You have proven your confusion over high school >> >math and physics. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >sci.math isn't for whining. sci.physics.relativity is for whining. Only because you and others choose to whine here. Try whining over there using the same illogical arguments you use on this newsgroup and see how well it goes over. >You know that I've used the mathematical expertise at sci.math to >definitively settle the confusion that arrogant physicists have >displayed in elementary mathematics. No, I don't know any such thing. What I do know is that you have a propensity to misrepresent what people post in order to try and play people off of each other as if you were an actor in a soap opera. You have no ability to convey facts without blatantly altering the content to try and make yourself out to be a misunderstood genius. >> Eugene Shubert: >> >> Eugene Shubert: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > if you throw enough mud at your opponent then some of it is bound to > stick. Physics models reality. Unlike religious dogma, a model will be dropped like a hot potato if empirical observation is in contradiction. Consistent mathematics doesn't help with the determination of reality or convey an understanding of physics. On the plus side, mathematics doesn't garner an inexhaustable line of crackpots uttering 1 + 1 = 3 and here lies a simple but significant difference. Phil Holman Do I hear that old Everly Brother's song Dream... Dream,Dream, Dream...or is just me? Hard for empirical evidence to reverse $4,000,000,000 dollars of copyrights, just for a single slip-up! Ken > Do I hear that old Everly Brother's song Dream... > Dream,Dream, Dream...or is just me? > Hard for empirical evidence to reverse $4,000,000,000 > dollars of copyrights, just for a single slip-up! Are you looking out of one eye again? Phil H LOL, maybe you think so... ken >> Do I hear that old Everly Brother's song Dream... >> Dream,Dream, Dream...or is just me? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Phil H In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Androcles > >> Do I hear that old Everly Brother's song Dream... > >> Dream,Dream, Dream...or is just me? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. > Androcles Idiot. In the Valley of the Blind they sleep during the warm day and work at night. No lightbulbs. The one-eyed man would be a hopeless illiterate cripple. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf At least he would get all the good lookin girls. Ken At least he would get all the good lookin girls. Ken >> >> Do I hear that old Everly Brother's song Dream... >> >> Dream,Dream, Dream...or is just me? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > work at night. No lightbulbs. The one-eyed man would be a hopeless > illiterate cripple. As you know from personal experience, f.cking stooopid cowardly Schwartzfification Androcles In sci.physics, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote on Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:05:26 -0800 <41D05CF6.F31F7062@hate.spam.net>: >> >> Do I hear that old Everly Brother's song Dream... >> >> Dream,Dream, Dream...or is just me? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > work at night. No lightbulbs. The one-eyed man would be a hopeless > illiterate cripple. Odd that they didn't mention a flashlight, though. :-) Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > Do I hear that old Everly Brother's song Dream... > Dream,Dream, Dream...or is just me? > Hard for empirical evidence to reverse $4,000,000,000 > dollars of copyrights, just for a single slip-up! > Ken Is that all? Androcles [snip] > Physics models reality. Unlike religious dogma, a model will > be dropped like a hot potato if empirical observation is in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Phil Holman Could you be a little more precise about your claim that "Physics models reality"? Physical theories make predictions about measurements, but measurements are free inventions. Patrick > [snip] >> Physics models reality. Unlike religious dogma, a model will [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that "Physics > models reality"? Example: Newton's model of the laws of motion was fairly good until Einstein came along. Rather than trashing Newton's laws, the revised model is now more inclusive. Phil H [snip] > > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that "Physics > > models reality"? > > Example: Newton's model of the laws of motion was fairly good until > Einstein came along. Rather than trashing Newton's laws, the revised > model is now more inclusive. What do you mean by the phrase "Newton's model of the laws of motion" and what is the exact relationship of this phrase and reality? Patrick > [snip] >> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that "Physics [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Patrick Is this a test? A model in this context is a theoretical framework for predicting behavior. The fact that we often ignore lower order effects (air resistance, friction and other losses) in solving theoretical problems means that our model is incomplete and doesn't exactly model reality. Nonetheless its a good heuristic. As velocities become very large, the model will need to account for the effects of relativity. Phil H > > [snip] > >> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that "Physics [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Is this a test? A model in this context is a theoretical framework for > predicting behavior. OK. > The fact that we often ignore lower order effects > (air resistance, friction and other losses) in solving theoretical > problems means that our model is incomplete and doesn't exactly model > reality. Nonetheless its a good heuristic. As velocities become very > large, the model will need to account for the effects of relativity. > > Phil H What do you mean when you say "model reality" in physics? Do you mean anything more than just "predicting behavior"? Patrick >> > [snip] >> >> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > What do you mean when you say "model reality" in physics? Do you mean > anything more than just "predicting behavior"? Well yes but it would be impractical if not impossible to model every atom and exactly model reality. Instead we just capture the essence of the outward form, structure, relationships, or arrangement of elements rather than the exact content. So how would you compare the contributions of a mathematician and a physicist in a modeling exercise? Phil H > >> > [snip] > >> >> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Well yes but it would be impractical if not impossible to model every > atom and exactly model reality. Instead we just capture the essence of > the outward form, structure, relationships, or arrangement of elements > rather than the exact content. Does a physical theory tell us the way the world really is as a "thing" and/or process? Or does it merely describe the behavior of the physical system through the artifice of measurements and their interrelationships? > So how would you compare the contributions of a mathematician and a > physicist in a modeling exercise? Sorry, I can't quite grasp the question here. Mathematicians aren't noted for "modeling." Patrick >> >> > [snip] >> >> >> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > system through the artifice of measurements and their > interrelationships? Physics - a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions. This is only a part of the whole picture. If you are looking for a complete description of "things" then physics is limited. >> So how would you compare the contributions of a mathematician and a >> physicist in a modeling exercise? > > Sorry, I can't quite grasp the question here. Mathematicians aren't > noted for "modeling." For example, a system of linear equations say in the application of finite element modeling. Phil H [snip] > > Does a physical theory tell us the way the world really is as a > > "thing" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > interactions. This is only a part of the whole picture. If you are > looking for a complete description of "things" then physics is limited. That misses the point. If physics could provide a complete description of phenomena, would that be total "reality"? BTW, I could define (or characterize) baking as - a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions, or firefighting - a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions. I think a better definition is in order for physics. > >> So how would you compare the contributions of a mathematician and a > >> physicist in a modeling exercise? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Phil H Applied math. I still don't get the point. What do mathematicians have to do with the topic? Patrick reany@asu.edu: >[snip] >> > Does a physical theory tell us the way the world really is as a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >That misses the point. If physics could provide a complete description >of phenomena, would that be total "reality"? Sure. What else could there be? I mean that ought to be obvious. How can something which cannot affect the outcome of an experiment, affect anything in the universe or in any sense be considered part of the universe? I >BTW, I could define (or characterize) baking as - a science that deals >with matter and energy and their interactions, or firefighting - a >science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions. I >think a better definition is in order for physics. You could characterize yourself as being serious, but that would also be a mischaracterization. > [snip] >> > Does a physical theory tell us the way the world really is as a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That misses the point. If physics could provide a complete description > of phenomena, would that be total "reality"? No. My point is that physics only deals with a subset of reality. > BTW, I could define (or characterize) baking as - a science that deals > with matter and energy and their interactions, or firefighting - a > science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions. I > think a better definition is in order for physics. If you apply the description to the topics covered in physics the definition is good enough. Why the need for a more complicated definition? >> >> So how would you compare the contributions of a mathematician and > a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Applied math. I still don't get the point. What do mathematicians have > to do with the topic? This part is still on topic per the subject line. Phil H > > [snip] > >> > Does a physical theory tell us the way the world really is as a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > No. My point is that physics only deals with a subset of reality. Ok. I agree. > > BTW, I could define (or characterize) baking as - a science that deals > > with matter and energy and their interactions, or firefighting - a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > definition is good enough. Why the need for a more complicated > definition? Physics is the search for the smallest set of rules which provides a complete description of the behavior of the inanimate material realm under natural conditions. Patrick >> > [snip] >> >> > Does a physical theory tell us the way the world really is as a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > complete description of the behavior of the inanimate material realm > under natural conditions. I'm being picky on you use of the word inanimate. Is there another set of rules for bio-mechanics? Phil H > >> > [snip] > >> >> > Does a physical theory tell us the way the world really is as a [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I'm being picky on you use of the word inanimate. Is there another set > of rules for bio-mechanics? Well, I'm not referring to the mechanics of how muscles and bones work. > Phil H Phil, everyone challenges me on the inclusion of that word, but as yet no one has told me how physics is at this time ready to explain biological behavior in terms of the basic laws of physics. I should be happy to drop the inclusion of the word "inanimate" when we can do that. They also challenge me on the inclusion of the phrase "under natural conditions." Patrick >> >> > [snip] >> >> >> > Does a physical theory tell us the way the world really is as [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > happy to drop the inclusion of the word "inanimate" when we can do > that. It doesn't have to be just a biological consideration. The design of seat belts and the study of kinematics in sports both deal with the behavior of anatomies in motion using the same rules for inanimate objects. In bio-mechanics I can think of lots of examples. The viscous drag of musculature being one. > They also challenge me on the inclusion of the phrase "under natural > conditions." No problem. Phil H reany@asu.edu: >Does a physical theory tell us the way the world really is as a "thing" >and/or process? Or does it merely describe the behavior of the physical >system through the artifice of measurements and their >interrelationships? Contrary to your belief that scientists don't claim to be seeking the ``true laws'' of nature, ``Two points of view can be detected among practicing scientists regarding the ontological status of these [physical] laws. The first is that there exist `real' laws or the `correct' set of laws. As science progresses so we converge upon the true' laws of the universe. By contrast, some scientists deny that there are any `true laws out there' existing independently of scientific enquiry. What we call laws, they maintain, are simply our attempts to cope with the world by ordering our experience in a systematic way. The only laws are our laws and they are to be judged solely on utilitarian grounds, i.e., they are neither true nor false, but merely more or less useful to us. My impression is that many scientists who practice what one might loosely call applied science incline toward the latter philosophy, while those engaged in fundamental research, for example, quantum cosmology or the unification program, adopt the former position.'' ``Why is the Physical World so Comprehensible?'' Davies, P.C.W. > reany@asu.edu: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Contrary to your belief that scientists don't claim to be seeking the > ``true laws'' of nature, I don't recall having ever made such a claim. I've been claiming what physics is, not what physicists say physics is. > ``Two points of view can be detected among practicing scientists > regarding the ontological status of these [physical] laws. The first [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ``Why is the Physical World so Comprehensible?'' > Davies, P.C.W. Bilge, are you a physicist who believes he has knows a particular true law of physics? If you are, tell us what law that is. Patrick reany@asu.edu: >> Contrary to your belief that scientists don't claim to be seeking >> the ``true laws'' of nature, > >I don't recall having ever made such a claim. I've been claiming what >physics is, not what physicists say physics is. And you know what physics is better than physicists do because? [...] >Bilge, are you a physicist who believes he has knows a particular true >law of physics? If you are, tell us what law that is. Attempts to enlighten you in the past on this subject have been unsuccessful, since apparently, what you want is a soundbite to misconstrue with a lot a philosohical babble rather than a real answer. That is obvious in the way you phrased that question. I'll settle for pointing out the comments made by well known and highly regarded physicists who disagree with your assessment of what physics is about. > reany@asu.edu: > >Bilge wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And you know what physics is better than physicists do because? Because I've bothered to have studied the philosophy of physics. Most of them don't! And you know it! For the same reason that learning conversational spanish does not in itself make one an expert in the grammar of spanish, just learning how to do physics doesn't make one an expert in the philosophy of physics. Beside the obvious philosophers of physics, such as Mach, Bridgman, Hertz, Einstein, Bohr, and Heisenberg, let's include Galileo, Newton, Comte, Carnap, Quine, Kuhn, Lakatos, Bunge, Reichenbach, Eddington, etc. How many of their philosophical essays or books have you read? What about the rest of today's physicists do you suppose? What modern physics curriculums demand any knowledge of the philosophy of physics? I'll tell you that what I've seen displayed on the philosophy of physics by physicists on this NG is mostly ignorant crap. I wonder how many physicists alive today have even bothered to read Einstein's book of science essays Ideas and Opinions. Probably less than 5%. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pointing out the comments made by well known and highly regarded > physicists who disagree with your assessment of what physics is about. You're no better than a crank to ignore my question. Ok, I'll ask one more time: Bilge, are you a physicist who believes he knows a particular true law of physics? If you are, tell us what law that is. Patrick reany@asu.edu: >> reany@asu.edu: >> >Bilge wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Because I've bothered to have studied the philosophy of physics. In what way does that make you more qualified than a physicist to decide what physics is about? I didn't ask you what made you more qualified to discuss philosophy, since I've never agreed that your philosophy of physics is releveant to physics nor do I think your opinion would find universal support or even a consensus among others who claim to have studied the philosophy of physics. >Most of them don't! And you know it! To whatever extent tht is true, I would have to say that it's because philosophers have made themselves irrelevant by not addressing the hard philosophical questions relevant to modern physics and living in the past. I also don't think that's true of all philosophers, but it's certainly true of you. > For the same reason that learning >conversational spanish does not in itself make one an expert in the >grammar of spanish, just learning how to do physics doesn't make one an >expert in the philosophy of physics. Your analogy is backwards. You are the person trying to be an expert on the language based upon a limited knowledge of the subject. You can't possibly discuss the philosophical implications of something like quantum mechanics without having at least a working knowledge of quantum mechanics and how it's used. [...] >I'll tell you that what I've seen displayed on the philosophy of >physics by physicists on this NG is mostly ignorant crap. If philosophers are at odds with physicists regarding physics, perhaps the philosophers should re-evaluate their position. However, I think it's primarily you that is at odds with physicists. >I wonder how many physicists alive today have even bothered to read >Einstein's book of science essays Ideas and Opinions. Probably less >than 5%. Not to put too fine a point on it, but einstein's philosophical views of nature have proven to be rather classical. It was precisely his philosophical prejudice about reality that prevented him from ever accepting quantum theory. [...] >You're no better than a crank to ignore my question. Ok, I'll ask one >more time: I didn't ignore your question, but apparently you ignored what I said about phrasing it, since you still insist on setting up a straw man. >Bilge, are you a physicist who believes he knows a particular true law >of physics? If you are, tell us what law that is. I'm a physicist who has no intention of adopting your personal idea of what my choices are in answering a question that is clearly rhetorical. Ask an intelligent question and stop being an a.shole, and I'll address the question. Otherwise, you'll get whatever I feel like typing, since I don't really see that winning or losing a debate with a hostile blowhard on usenet is going to affect my life one way or the other. If you actually learned anything from all of the philosophy that crossed your path, you should be able to avoid simple logical fallacies in posing questions. > reany@asu.edu: > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > opinion would find universal support or even a consensus among others > who claim to have studied the philosophy of physics. I have indicated how I interpreted your question. So, to clarify: I don't claim to be better than physicists at inventing physical theories or making measurements of measureables or of solving for Green functions or teaching QM or any other specific subject in physics. I claim to be better at explaining the logical structure of physics as a subject in itself. [snip] > >I'll tell you that what I've seen displayed on the philosophy of > >physics by physicists on this NG is mostly ignorant crap. > > If philosophers are at odds with physicists regarding physics, perhaps > the philosophers should re-evaluate their position. However, I think > it's primarily you that is at odds with physicists. I thought I also mentioned the names of some prominant physicists, which you continue to ignore. But please do name the physicists that I am "at odds with" and tell us ALL exactly what those differences are. > >I wonder how many physicists alive today have even bothered to read > >Einstein's book of science essays Ideas and Opinions. Probably less [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > his philosophical prejudice about reality that prevented him from ever > accepting quantum theory. That is a typical ignorant comment made by an arrogant physicist who does not KNOW Einstein's total recorded philosophy of physics, which broadly transcended mere applications to questions of realism vis-a-vis QM. You are the living proof of ignorance of physicists who don't know even the basics of what the prominant physicists who lived before them wrote about their philosophies of physics. You are in no position to judge the value of what they wrote until you read it for yourself! (Hopefully with an open mind!) And what's your whole damn cop out for not bothering to learn what those physicists believed: "Well, that's being stuck in the past if you take time to learn it." Maybe the real reason you don't bother to learn what those physicists wrote about their philosophies of physics is more about your own philosophical prejudices. It is also ignorant and misrepresentative to say without qualification that Einstein "rejected quantum theory." We know he thought it was an incomplete theory and he rejected the Bohr philosophy that QT is the most complete theory one can invent about the micro world. But Einstein did say in many places many complimentary things about QT. However, QT does not imply or require Copenhagenism. It is two completely different things to say 1) Person P rejects theory T and 2) Person P rejects the view that there's nothing better than theory T. [snip] > >Bilge, are you a physicist who believes he knows a particular true law > >of physics? If you are, tell us what law that is. > > I'm a physicist who has no intention of adopting your personal idea of > what my choices are in answering a question that is clearly rhetorical. [snip] Typical BS from an arrogant physicist. Bilge, you're the one who specifically opened this line of questioning by saying above: Contrary to your belief that scientists don't claim to be seeking the `true laws' of nature But if you insist on making posts that are pure rancorous platitudues, go ahead. Show what you really are as a debator. Set the record straight. Patrick reany@asu.edu: >> In what way does that make you more qualified than a physicist to >> decide what physics is about? I didn't ask you what made you more [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >claim to be better at explaining the logical structure of physics as a >subject in itself. I'm claiming that you aren't better at explaining the logical structure and in fact, are only vaguely aware of even a small part of that logical structure and I seriously doubt you could provide a physically intuitive picture of any physical theory. >> If philosophers are at odds with physicists regarding physics, >> perhaps the philosophers should re-evaluate their position. However, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >which you continue to ignore. But please do name the physicists that I >am "at odds with" and tell us ALL exactly what those differences are. Read the thread to which you are responding. Read my previous replies on this subject in other threads. [...] >> Not to put too fine a point on it, but einstein's philosophical >> views of nature have proven to be rather classical. It was precisely [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >broadly transcended mere applications to questions of realism vis-a-vis >QM. Are you disputing that einstein never accepted quantum mechanics? Are you disputing that the reason he did not was his belief in a particular reality? >You are the living proof of ignorance of physicists who don't know >even the basics of what the prominant physicists who lived before them >wrote about their philosophies of physics. You are in no position to >judge the value of what they wrote until you read it for yourself! >(Hopefully with an open mind!) I take that to mean you have no reasin for disagreeing with what I said, but felt compelled to disagree anyway. >And what's your whole damn cop out for not bothering to learn what >those physicists believed: "Well, that's being stuck in the past if you >take time to learn it." Maybe the real reason you don't bother to learn >what those physicists wrote about their philosophies of physics is more >about your own philosophical prejudices. Or perhaps you haven't the slightest idea what I have and have not read because I don't feel that it's necessary to post soundbites of the pieces to justify what I can justify myself. >It is also ignorant and misrepresentative to say without qualification >that Einstein "rejected quantum theory." Don't be a moron. The entire idea behind the epr experiment was to draw attention to the ``fact'' that quantum mechanics was ridiculous on its face, since there was no hope of doing that experiment at the time. >We know he thought it was an incomplete theory and he rejected the >Bohr philosophy that QT is the most complete theory one can invent >about the micro world. What's your point? What he rejected has, so far, proven true and in my opinion, makes more sense than if bohr were wrong. >But Einstein did say in many places many complimentary things about QT. >However, QT does not imply or require Copenhagenism. Since you have no idea what quantum mechanics has to say about anything, you are in no position to judge. Rather than litter your responses with gratuitous name dropping, why don't you actually try to employ what you think you've learned? >It is two completely different things to say 1) Person P rejects theory >T and 2) Person P rejects the view that there's nothing better than >theory T. What's your point? Einstein's idea of ``better'' was precisely the problem, just as I stated originally. Do you bother to read anything that is actually written? [...] >Contrary to your belief that scientists don't >claim to be seeking the `true laws' of nature > >But if you insist on making posts that are pure rancorous platitudues, >go ahead. Show what you really are as a debator. Set the record >straight. I did. What you asked has nothing to do with that statement of mine you just quoted, other than being a convenient strawman. Either you are too stupid to connect your questions to what I actually said, or you need to read, www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html and realize that you aren't going to get anywhere with such an obvious attempt to get me to argue your strawman. >> [snip] >>> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that "Physics [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Is this a test? No. His goal is to get some scientist to write what Patrick wants him to say. And then that will be used forever more to justify rewriting all science education, books, and past successes. He is desparately trying to merge Christian theology with the Scientific Method; except one of the steps of the Method is separate what can be studied using the Method and what can't be studied using the Method. <snip> /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. > >> [snip] > >>> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that "Physics [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > is separate what can be studied using the Method and what > can't be studied using the Method. Oh, please do elucidate this for us plainly -- if you can. Especially this "Christian theology with the Scientific Method." You can start by telling us what the Scientific Method is, and you can begin that task by telling us what the Scientific Method is a method of! Patrick >> >> [snip] >> >>> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >begin that task by telling us what the Scientific Method is a method >of! I pointed you (many times) at a chapter of a biology book which talks in length about the Scientific Method. It was the discussion I've ever seen. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. > >> >> [snip] > >> >>> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > length about the Scientific Method. It was the discussion > I've ever seen. You still haven't as yet elucidate this alleged connection I have made between "Christian theology with the Scientific Method." You should do so now. Patrick >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >>> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >between "Christian theology with the Scientific Method." You should do >so now. My conclusion is based on the langugage you reject when scientists, who actually do this work, gave you definitions and descriptions of terms _as they are used in the fields of science_. My first hint was when you started using lanugage that preachers use when they tell their congregations about the only science that is acceptable to Christian theology. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. > >> >> >>> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message news:1104114106.990369.135370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > >> >> >> [snip] > >> >> >>> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > that preachers use when they tell their congregations about > the only science that is acceptable to Christian theology. Typically vague. Now prove your claims. Patrick >>> [snip] >>>> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that "Physics [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > is separate what can be studied using the Method and what > can't be studied using the Method. Where does this come from? Phil H >>>> [snip] >>>>> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that "Physics [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Where does this come from? I don't understand the question; what do you mean by "this"? Reany's hidden agenda? The step of the Scientific Method I mentioned? /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. > >>>> [snip] > >>>>> > Could you be a little more precise about your claim that "Physics [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. Come on, don't be coy. Be explicit! Or is my so-called "hidden agenda" so hidden that you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about? Patrick > "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message [snip] > Mathematicians are not interested in the foundations of physics. They > don't understand the religious devotion given to special relativity. It takes two to argue, doesn't it? Do you have a religious devotion against special relativity? Or are you just completely impartial? Patrick |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.