> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Rceeberger > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 9:47 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: RE: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations > > > On 11/30/2008 5:30:23 PM, Dan M ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Rob wrote: > > > > > If physics were anything more than approximate, we would have final > > > answers to all our questions. > > > > How? All physics does is model observations. > > Models make predictions. And over time models have made predictions with > greater accuracy and that cover more situations that previous models > failed. Mercury anyone? > > Models also allow us to re-create phenomena for our own purposes.
I'm not arguing against modeling observation. Besides paying the bills, it's at the foundation of modern civilization. Without it, we'd be little better off than they were 500 years ago. I was just pointing out that there are plenty of worthwhile questions that will not be answered by science. > > Physics was created out of > > Natural Philosophy by tabling the question of the reliability of > > observations. > > Which definition of "tabling" are you using here? Roberts Rules of Order :-) US > > > > Now, you can use the results of physics as a reliable model of what we > > observe when you do metaphysics. But, it is a really really good idea > to > > not confuse when you are doing physics and when you are doing something > > else. Otherwise you can wander off into the aether. :-) > > > > <G> I think the implication of what I wrote before is that for most of us > there really isn't much of a difference. > I would think it quite different when having a formal discussion. Sure, and I appreciate your position. But, I've hoped you remember one of the zillion times I remarked that there are a number of different interpretations of physics: many different realities that are all equally consistent with observations, and for which there is no empirical test short of finding the aether, or something equally startling, to differentiate between the interpretations. Thus, I take exception with a science magazine which states that the authors pet interpretation has been proven by a new discovery, when it hasn't. One real problem, from my perspective, is that the average layman is trying to fit modern physics back into a classical box. To paraphrase one prominent physicist from the 20s when asked to comment on the correctness of someone's hypothesison a theory he thought was horrid, "Right? Right, he isn't even Wrong." This is what the first two paragraphs of the New Scientist article remind me of. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
