On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Peter Sas <[email protected]> wrote:
> The irony is that Kant thought his construction of the matter concept > could not be proven wrong since it was a priori... > And once again a philosopher has got it wrong. > > it remains the case that the electromagnetic force causes positive > charges to repel each other and to attract negative charges, which are > repellent among themselves. Your description of how a magnetic field works > just seems to offer another way of describing the same fact. > A ELECTRIC field can only attract or repel a electron, but a MAGNETIC field can only apply a force at right angles to the direction the charged object is moving, and if it isn't moving the magnetic field has no effect on it. As for a ELECTROMAGNETIC field, a changing electric field causes a magnetic field at right angles to it, and a changing magnetic field causes a electric field at right angles to it. > > > can't we say that the electromagnetic force is completely described (on > some general level) by noting the repulsive and attractive forces between > charges? > No. > Also with respect to Russell's remark about Pauli's exclusion principle > (PEP): It says that fermions of the same type cannot have the same quantum > state. But how is that different from saying that those fermions repel each > other? Nobody is saying nothing can be attractive or repulsive, we're just saying not everything is. > And what is the status of the PEP? > It's the basis of chemistry which is the basis of biology. > It seems to be independent of the four basic forces. > It's not. It explains how electrons and electromagnetism work at the atomic level (for larger things Maxwell's Equations work fine) and when things get even smaller it explains how the strong nuclear force works inside the nucleus. > Is it more of a logical principle? > Yes. It explains why particles with half integer spin (1/2, 3/2, 5/2 etc) like electrons, protons and neutrons can't be in the same quantum state but particles with integer spin (0,1,2 etc) like photons and the graviton and the Higgs can be, in fact they prefer to be in the same state, that's why a Laser works. > > Heinz Pagel in his book The Cosmic Code argues that PEP is an > application of the logical principle of the identity of indiscernibles to > the quantum level. > Yes. I've been know to badmouth philosophers but I've got to give credit to Leibniz for that one, the identity of indiscernibles was important. > > I would say that the PEP actually provides a good argument for Kant's > approach: > If you must give some credit to old philosophers give it to Leibniz not Kant, Kant's theory is over 200 years old and in all that time it has proven to be of zero help in understanding the universe. > > But induction is precisely a principle rejected by Popper > Some very very stupid philosophers may say they reject induction but they do not, they couldn't get up in the morning and tie their shoes if they did. Every animal without exception embraces induction. Why? Because Evolution selected for animals that embraced induction. Why? Because induction usually works. Why? Because things usually continue. Why? Because that's the nature of our world. if Everett is right then there is a universe where induction ALWAYS works, although its not a very interesting place; its a universe where all the atoms are arranged in a unchanging and perfect crystal lattice that is infinite in all directions. There is also a world where induction NEVER works, a universe of nothing but white noise, and that too is a pretty dull place. Our universe with all its complexity and richness is between these two extremes, here induction is a great rule of thumb because it USUALLY works. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
