----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 10:03 PM Subject: RE: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
> > >> -----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. > Ummmmm....yeah. Though I have to admit I'm left wondering if you are talking about questions in the "soft" sciences (which can seem a bit arbitrary to my mind and subject to change for a variety of reasons), or if you are referring to "ultimate" questions that lay people tend to think physics aims for. (Just for clarity, I think we both agree when it comes to the subject of "Truth") > >> > 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 OK thanks! I'm not sure I understand your statement in that case. Fleishman and Pons observations were certainly called into question, as were their methodologies.Same with, say, creationists. So offhand I would expect that the reliability of observations is important, but recognise that you could be defining "observation" in a way I am not. > >> > >> > 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. I recall that years ago there was a very lengthy thread here that dealt with metaphysical questions of the ultimate reality and why such philosophical discussion is pretty much meaningless. I wish I still had all those old files from my first few years here. > > 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. Something has been demonstrated. I agree it is open to interpretation. I can think of other explainations that might satisfy the observations, leakage from tiny higher dimensions frex. > > 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. > Last year everything was all about strings (again), but the article seems to ignore all that and doesn't reference. xponent Modalities Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
