| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Peter Kinane" |
| Date: |
25 Jul 2005 05:25:06 PM |
| Object: |
Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
Effectuationism and Classical Mechanics
news:daekoj$m9h$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in Effectuationism, a
demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a point but also somewhat
continuous.
2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous, rather
than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the equator
flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather patterns - which
simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
4. It seems to presume as rigorous its concepts of space and time.
5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the observer
on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this should in
some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the micro-level, e.g.
a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value as
indefinite, dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted. Quantum Mechanics
features a wave-particle duality concept.
Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical Mechanics
regards QM as weird.
However, if (with the benefit of Effectuationism) one commences as
comfortable with the features of QM one can then see these conventional
characteristics of Classical Mechanics as weird, and that coherence of the
two models might be more successfully pursued by tackling this latter
weirdness - in effect, to make CM correspond to QM, as a relationship of
forces, rather than the other way about. ('Anyone for a lesson in
Effectuationist structure and syntax?')
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/Bohr-v-Einstein.html
( news:d9v1sq02cs4@drn.newsguy.com... )
On the other hand, QM needs to get over any inferiority complex it has about
effectuation of the measuring apparatus as frame of reference (FoR).
Whereas, CM needs to develop self-doubt about its concept of "independent
bodies in space and time". It would seem that the concepts of
"complementarity" and "the uncertainty principle" can be discarded. Both QM
and CM worlds feature selected frames of reference - the QM world recognises
that it is so in QM, whereas the CM world conventionally is not smart enough
to notice this in CM.
So, 'Nature' am effectuationist. We may be 'restricted' in manipulating the
QM world through a minimum quantum of action (FoR-mqa). But, given that
'restriction', and abandoning the concepts of "complementarity" and "the
uncertainty principle", we may address the potential of human manipulation
(FoR-mqa) within QM world on atoms and molecules - working on more developed
fields rather than focusing on isolating 'forces'. Presumably we may do so
with good prospects of constructive discoveries?
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/23/58.html?1119200415
.
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
26 Jul 2005 03:19:18 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:2%dFe.62755$oJ.19159@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of experience of
you, may not get into a prolonged exchange. By the way, have you made any
progress in advancing from your notion that there is not a scrap of
philosophy in physics? Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and
that is all that matters"?
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dc3odi$3js$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
Effectuationism and Classical Mechanics
news:daekoj$m9h$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in
Effectuationism,
a
demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a point but also somewhat
continuous.
Sure - classical mechanics assumes inertial frames - but experiment
indicates to a good degree of accuracy they exist.
Given that I am comparing QM with CM, the same degree of closure in both
systems as "good" is what is at issue. (This would also require a rigorous
understanding of gravity).
2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous,
rather
than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the equator
flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather patterns -
which
simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
Since the butterfly effect is based on classical mechanics you objection
would seem logically absurd.
I accept that the clarity of my point here leaves a bit to be desired.
However, as you seem to imply that CM recognises "the butterfly effect"
then, on progressing to QM, people should not be surprised to find there
that energy quantises.
3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
Classical mechanics does not assume a theory of gravity.
Good, then it is not a complete coherent system and so should be quite open
to seeing CM rather than QM as weird.
4. It seems to presume as rigorous its concepts of space and time.
It assumes Euclidian geometry and the existence of things called clocks
whose readings are universal.
It features a lot of nonsense.
5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the
observer
on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this should in
some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the micro-level,
e.g.
a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
Its domain it exactly where QM effects can be ignored.
I am addressing the coherence of the two.
6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value as
indefinite, dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted. Quantum Mechanics
features a wave-particle duality concept.
Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical Mechanics
regards QM as weird.
It is your understanding that is weird.
Bill
However, if (with the benefit of Effectuationism) one commences as
comfortable with the features of QM one can then see these conventional
characteristics of Classical Mechanics as weird, and that coherence of
the
two models might be more successfully pursued by tackling this latter
weirdness - in effect, to make CM correspond to QM, as a relationship of
forces, rather than the other way about. ('Anyone for a lesson in
Effectuationist structure and syntax?')
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/Bohr-v-Einstein.html
( news:d9v1sq02cs4@drn.newsguy.com... )
On the other hand, QM needs to get over any inferiority complex it has
about
effectuation of the measuring apparatus as frame of reference (FoR).
Whereas, CM needs to develop self-doubt about its concept of
"independent
bodies in space and time". It would seem that the concepts of
"complementarity" and "the uncertainty principle" can be discarded. Both
QM
and CM worlds feature selected frames of reference - the QM world
recognises
that it is so in QM, whereas the CM world conventionally is not smart
enough
to notice this in CM.
So, 'Nature' am effectuationist. We may be 'restricted' in manipulating
the
QM world through a minimum quantum of action (FoR-mqa). But, given that
'restriction', and abandoning the concepts of "complementarity" and "the
uncertainty principle", we may address the potential of human
manipulation
(FoR-mqa) within QM world on atoms and molecules - working on more
developed
fields rather than focusing on isolating 'forces'. Presumably we may do
so
with good prospects of constructive discoveries?
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
26 Jul 2005 06:56:45 AM |
|
|
A few edits:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:2%dFe.62755$oJ.19159@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of experience of
you, may not get into a prolonged exchange. By the way, have you made any
progress in advancing from your notion that there is not a scrap of
philosophy in physics? Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and
that is all that matters"?
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dc3odi$3js$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
Effectuationism and Classical Mechanics
news:daekoj$m9h$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in
Effectuationism, a
demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a point but also somewhat
continuous.
Sure - classical mechanics assumes inertial frames - but experiment
indicates to a good degree of accuracy they exist.
Given that I am [cohering] QM with CM, the same degree of closure in both
systems as "good" is what is at issue. (This would also require a rigorous
understanding of gravity).
2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous,
rather
than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the equator
flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather patterns -
which
simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
Since the butterfly effect is based on classical mechanics you objection
would seem logically absurd.
I accept that the clarity of my point here leaves a bit to be desired.
However, as you seem to imply that CM recognises "the butterfly effect"
then, on progressing to QM, people should not be surprised to find there
that energy quantises.
3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
Classical mechanics does not assume a theory of gravity.
Good, then it is not a complete coherent system and so should be quite open
to seeing CM rather than QM as weird.
4. It seems to presume as rigorous its concepts of space and time.
It assumes Euclidian geometry and the existence of things called clocks
whose readings are universal.
[I am cohering CM with QM - in effect cohering the macro world with the
micro world. So, I'm lumping Einstein's stuff into the macro world -
although given its quality perhaps it should be thought of as a world of its
own.]
5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the
observer
on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this should in
some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the micro-level,
e.g. a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
Its domain it exactly where QM effects can be ignored.
[I am addressing the issue of making the two cohere].
6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value as
indefinite, dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted. Quantum Mechanics
features a wave-particle duality concept.
Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical Mechanics
regards QM as weird.
It is your understanding that is weird.
Bill
However, if (with the benefit of Effectuationism) one commences as
comfortable with the features of QM one can then see these conventional
characteristics of Classical Mechanics as weird, and that coherence of
the two models might be more successfully pursued by tackling this
latter
weirdness - in effect, to make CM correspond to QM, as a relationship of
forces, rather than the other way about. ('Anyone for a lesson in
Effectuationist structure and syntax?')
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/Bohr-v-Einstein.html
( news:d9v1sq02cs4@drn.newsguy.com... )
On the other hand, QM needs to get over any inferiority complex it has
about effectuation of the measuring apparatus as frame of reference
(FoR).
Whereas, CM needs to develop self-doubt about its concept of
"independent bodies in space and time". It would seem that the concepts
of
"complementarity" and "the uncertainty principle" can be discarded. Both
QM and CM worlds feature selected frames of reference - the QM world
recognises that it is so in QM, whereas the CM world conventionally is
not smart
enough to notice this in CM.
So, 'Nature' am effectuationist. We may be 'restricted' in manipulating
the
QM world through a minimum quantum of action (FoR-mqa). But, given that
'restriction', and abandoning the concepts of "complementarity" and "the
uncertainty principle", we may address the potential of human
manipulation
(FoR-mqa) within QM world on atoms and molecules - working on more
developed fields rather than focusing on isolating 'forces'. Presumably
we may do
so with good prospects of constructive discoveries?
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
28 Jul 2005 12:35:30 AM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dc584p$hr4$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
A few edits:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:2%dFe.62755$oJ.19159@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of experience of
you, may not get into a prolonged exchange. By the way, have you made any
progress in advancing from your notion that there is not a scrap of
philosophy in physics?
I never claimed there is not a scrap of philosophy in physics - my claim is
it is of a rather elementary and easily understood sort. For example one
can not on scientific grinds prefer SR over LET since they are equally in
accord with experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
which modern physics has shown is very important. Thus on the grounds of
being more in accord with unifying principles from other areas it is to be
preferred.
Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and
that is all that matters"?
Since that is not my claim I do not need to justify it.
Bill
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dc3odi$3js$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
Effectuationism and Classical Mechanics
news:daekoj$m9h$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in
Effectuationism, a
demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a point but also
somewhat
continuous.
Sure - classical mechanics assumes inertial frames - but experiment
indicates to a good degree of accuracy they exist.
Given that I am [cohering] QM with CM, the same degree of closure in both
systems as "good" is what is at issue. (This would also require a rigorous
understanding of gravity).
2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous,
rather
than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the equator
flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather patterns -
which
simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
Since the butterfly effect is based on classical mechanics you objection
would seem logically absurd.
I accept that the clarity of my point here leaves a bit to be desired.
However, as you seem to imply that CM recognises "the butterfly effect"
then, on progressing to QM, people should not be surprised to find there
that energy quantises.
3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
Classical mechanics does not assume a theory of gravity.
Good, then it is not a complete coherent system and so should be quite
open
to seeing CM rather than QM as weird.
4. It seems to presume as rigorous its concepts of space and time.
It assumes Euclidian geometry and the existence of things called clocks
whose readings are universal.
[I am cohering CM with QM - in effect cohering the macro world with the
micro world. So, I'm lumping Einstein's stuff into the macro world -
although given its quality perhaps it should be thought of as a world of
its
own.]
5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the
observer
on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this should
in
some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the micro-level,
e.g. a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
Its domain it exactly where QM effects can be ignored.
[I am addressing the issue of making the two cohere].
6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value
as
indefinite, dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted. Quantum Mechanics
features a wave-particle duality concept.
Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical
Mechanics
regards QM as weird.
It is your understanding that is weird.
Bill
However, if (with the benefit of Effectuationism) one commences as
comfortable with the features of QM one can then see these
conventional
characteristics of Classical Mechanics as weird, and that coherence of
the two models might be more successfully pursued by tackling this
latter
weirdness - in effect, to make CM correspond to QM, as a relationship
of
forces, rather than the other way about. ('Anyone for a lesson in
Effectuationist structure and syntax?')
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/Bohr-v-Einstein.html
( news:d9v1sq02cs4@drn.newsguy.com... )
On the other hand, QM needs to get over any inferiority complex it has
about effectuation of the measuring apparatus as frame of reference
(FoR).
Whereas, CM needs to develop self-doubt about its concept of
"independent bodies in space and time". It would seem that the
concepts
of
"complementarity" and "the uncertainty principle" can be discarded.
Both
QM and CM worlds feature selected frames of reference - the QM world
recognises that it is so in QM, whereas the CM world conventionally is
not smart
enough to notice this in CM.
So, 'Nature' am effectuationist. We may be 'restricted' in
manipulating
the
QM world through a minimum quantum of action (FoR-mqa). But, given
that
'restriction', and abandoning the concepts of "complementarity" and
"the
uncertainty principle", we may address the potential of human
manipulation
(FoR-mqa) within QM world on atoms and molecules - working on more
developed fields rather than focusing on isolating 'forces'.
Presumably
we may do
so with good prospects of constructive discoveries?
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
28 Jul 2005 04:59:41 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:C8_Fe.64832$oJ.10310@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dc584p$hr4$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
A few edits:
Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of experience
of
you, may not get into a prolonged exchange. By the way, have you made
any
progress in advancing from your notion that there is not a scrap of
philosophy in physics?
I never claimed there is not a scrap of philosophy in physics - my claim
is
it is of a rather elementary and easily understood sort.
Whether you claim or assert, you often protested against the mention of
philosophy in what you regard as a physics forum.
For example one
can not on scientific grinds prefer SR over LET since they are equally in
accord with experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
which modern physics has shown is very important. Thus on the grounds of
being more in accord with unifying principles from other areas it is to be
preferred.
Since you focus on SR and LET, I would describe these - though I've given
little attention to the latter - not so much as "rather elementary and
easily understood" as "rather primal" - more primitve than primitive.
'So, we are almost in agreement on this?'
Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and
that is all that matters"?
Since that is not my claim I do not need to justify it.
"Relativity is experimentally supported, and that is all that matters" may
be nearer to your wording. Given that you've been posting such stuff for
years, perhaps you should take a close look at it.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
28 Jul 2005 08:16:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:59:41 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:C8_Fe.64832$oJ.10310@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dc584p$hr4$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
A few edits:
Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of
of you, may not get into a prolonged exchange. By the way, have
any you made progress in advancing from your notion that there
is not a scrap of philosophy in physics?
I never claimed there is not a scrap of philosophy in physics -
my claim is it is of a rather elementary and easily understood
sort.
Whether you claim or assert, you often protested against the
mention of philosophy in what you regard as a physics forum.
Religious beliefs are always selective... The Hobbit picks &
chooses only those that suit him. That is the way of any 'meta'
perspective. However, most don't like to acknowledge that all
such perspectives are equally valid from the 'human' standpoint.
For example one can not on scientific grinds ...
Bwah ha, ha, ha, LOL
... prefer SR over LET since they are equally in accord with
experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
which modern physics has shown is very important.
But, if they are indistinguishable, BOTH! must have said symmetry.
At issue is NOT symmetry, but the phiolosophy, specifically that
underpinning of said obvious observed symmetry.
Thus on the grounds of being more in accord with unifying principles
from other areas it is to be preferred.
One wonders how, given the FACT! that these both are indistinguishable,
both mathematically & observationally, this reasoning is sound for the
objective viewpoint.
Since you focus on SR and LET, I would describe these - though I've
given little attention to the latter - not so much as "rather
elementary and easily understood" as "rather primal" - more primitve
than primitive.
'So, we are almost in agreement on this?'
Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and that is all
that matters"?
Since that is not my claim I do not need to justify it.
What is SR based upon then, if NOT empirical principles?
"Relativity is experimentally supported, and that is all that matters"
may be nearer to your wording. Given that you've been posting such
stuff for years, perhaps you should take a close look at it.
I would like to know the basis for modern Relativity if it is not
principles deduced from a purely empirical basis.
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
29 Jul 2005 04:41:05 AM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:kuuie1lkf0rjqudo4j110v6s1j304cs4ii@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:59:41 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:C8_Fe.64832$oJ.10310@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dc584p$hr4$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
A few edits:
Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of
of you, may not get into a prolonged exchange. By the way, have
any you made progress in advancing from your notion that there
is not a scrap of philosophy in physics?
I never claimed there is not a scrap of philosophy in physics -
my claim is it is of a rather elementary and easily understood
sort.
Whether you claim or assert, you often protested against the
mention of philosophy in what you regard as a physics forum.
Religious beliefs are always selective... The Hobbit picks &
chooses only those that suit him. That is the way of any 'meta'
perspective. However, most don't like to acknowledge that all
such perspectives are equally valid from the 'human' standpoint.
For example one can not on scientific grinds ...
Bwah ha, ha, ha, LOL
... prefer SR over LET since they are equally in accord with
experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
which modern physics has shown is very important.
But, if they are indistinguishable, BOTH! must have said symmetry.
At issue is NOT symmetry, but the phiolosophy, specifically that
underpinning of said obvious observed symmetry.
Yes, I like to include philosophy in the "symmetry" (or coherence, coherence
and coherence) too.
Thus on the grounds of being more in accord with unifying principles
from other areas it is to be preferred.
One wonders how, given the FACT! that these both are indistinguishable,
both mathematically & observationally, this reasoning is sound for the
objective viewpoint.
Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may not be
those of another, so one's gotta relate systems with each other for greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".
Since you focus on SR and LET, I would describe these - though I've
given little attention to the latter - not so much as "rather
elementary and easily understood" as "rather primal" - more primitve
than primitive.
'So, we are almost in agreement on this?'
Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and that is all
that matters"?
Since that is not my claim I do not need to justify it.
What is SR based upon then, if NOT empirical principles?
"Relativity is experimentally supported, and that is all that matters"
may be nearer to your wording. Given that you've been posting such
stuff for years, perhaps you should take a close look at it.
I would like to know the basis for modern Relativity if it is not
principles deduced from a purely empirical basis.
Re "a purely empirical basis": This concept would seem to bring focus upon
the "underpinning philosophy" of itself - "a purely empirical basis".
Relativity, like all value and all physics and all politics and all all,
expresses philosophy - unfortunately rather lame (primal) philosophy. That
is probably why muscle is still so important in many fields - the weapon of
choice. As more powerful weapons become more readily available, time may be
running out for this lame philosophy.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
You gotta get 'em between the ears.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
30 Jul 2005 09:47:30 AM |
|
|
- On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:41:05 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote:
- "Paul Stowe"
- "Peter Kinane"
- "Bill Hobba" (The Hobbit)
For example one can not on scientific grinds ...
Bwah ha, ha, ha, LOL
... prefer SR over LET since they are equally in accord with
experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
which modern physics has shown is very important.
But, if they are indistinguishable, BOTH! must have said symmetry.
At issue is NOT symmetry, but the phiolosophy, specifically that
underpinning of said obvious observed symmetry.
Yes, I like to include philosophy in the "symmetry" (or coherence,
coherence and coherence) too.
Of course... The so-called 'beauty' of symmetry is pure unadulterated
philosophy. Worse, for many, it has taken on a religious perspective.
They worship it! Sadly, the Hobbit is one of those...
Thus on the grounds of being more in accord with unifying principles
from other areas it is to be preferred.
One wonders how, given the FACT! that these both are indistinguishable,
both mathematically & observationally, this reasoning is sound for
the objective viewpoint.
Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may not
be those of another, ...
Sure. Another equal philosophy is that there exist NO! such
'principles'. That every prinicple must have founding processes
and properties. To quit at claiming 'principle' is in fact
a shallow cop-out.
... so one's gotta relate systems with each other for greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".
This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy.
Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and that is all
that matters"?
Since that is not my claim I do not need to justify it.
What is SR based upon then, if NOT empirical principles?
We'll note that this shut the Hobbit down cold...
"Relativity is experimentally supported, and that is all that matters"
may be nearer to your wording. Given that you've been posting such
stuff for years, perhaps you should take a close look at it.
I would like to know the basis for modern Relativity if it is not
principles deduced from a purely empirical basis.
Re "a purely empirical basis": This concept would seem to bring focus
upon the "underpinning philosophy" of itself - "a purely empirical
basis".
That was the purpose :)
Relativity, like all value and all physics and all politics and all
all, expresses philosophy - unfortunately rather lame (primal) philosophy.
I'd say a totally lame Kantian philosophy! The sad point is,
Bozos like the Hobbit won't acknowledge that it IS a metaphyical
philosophy! One of several equal alternatives.
That is probably why muscle is still so important in many fields - the
weapon of choice. As more powerful weapons become more readily available,
time may be running out for this lame philosophy.
Lame is quite a good discription for Kantian positivism...
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
30 Jul 2005 10:43:43 AM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:ir2ne19ks64o4khuki909gs716hmpa001u@4ax.com...
- On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:41:05 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie>
wrote:
- "Paul Stowe"
- "Peter Kinane"
- "Bill Hobba" (The Hobbit)
For example one can not on scientific grinds ...
Bwah ha, ha, ha, LOL
... prefer SR over LET since they are equally in accord with
experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
which modern physics has shown is very important.
But, if they are indistinguishable, BOTH! must have said symmetry.
At issue is NOT symmetry, but the phiolosophy, specifically that
underpinning of said obvious observed symmetry.
Yes, I like to include philosophy in the "symmetry" (or coherence,
coherence and coherence) too.
Of course... The so-called 'beauty' of symmetry is pure unadulterated
philosophy. Worse, for many, it has taken on a religious perspective.
They worship it! Sadly, the Hobbit is one of those...
Thus on the grounds of being more in accord with unifying principles
from other areas it is to be preferred.
One wonders how, given the FACT! that these both are indistinguishable,
both mathematically & observationally, this reasoning is sound for
the objective viewpoint.
Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may not
be those of another, ...
Sure. Another equal philosophy is that there exist NO! such
'principles'. That every prinicple must have founding processes
and properties. To quit at claiming 'principle' is in fact
a shallow cop-out.
Indeed, though this did not occur to me at point of posting. So, and this
too is probably a waste of time, to Bill: Let's have at least one example of
a "unifying principle[] from [any area]".
... so one's gotta relate systems with each other for greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".
This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy.
I'm not clear on what you're saying.
Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and that is all
that matters"?
Since that is not my claim I do not need to justify it.
What is SR based upon then, if NOT empirical principles?
We'll note that this shut the Hobbit down cold...
It would probably be fair to say that a lot of people have made themselves
scarce - perhaps a spine problem.
"Relativity is experimentally supported, and that is all that matters"
may be nearer to your wording. Given that you've been posting such
stuff for years, perhaps you should take a close look at it.
I would like to know the basis for modern Relativity if it is not
principles deduced from a purely empirical basis.
Re "a purely empirical basis": This concept would seem to bring focus
upon the "underpinning philosophy" of itself - "a purely empirical
basis".
That was the purpose :)
Ok, and I guess its directed to Bill.
Relativity, like all value and all physics and all politics and all
all, expresses philosophy - unfortunately rather lame (primal)
philosophy.
I'd say a totally lame Kantian philosophy! The sad point is,
Bozos like the Hobbit won't acknowledge that it IS a metaphyical
philosophy! One of several equal alternatives.
That is probably why muscle is still so important in many fields - the
weapon of choice. As more powerful weapons become more readily
available,
time may be running out for this lame philosophy.
Lame is quite a good discription for Kantian positivism...
It is probably a good description of pretty well everything that, up to
recently, passed for philosophy - again, there seems to be a spine problem,
probably understandable after 2,400 years of ...
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
30 Jul 2005 11:02:18 AM |
|
|
- On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:43:43 +0100, "Peter Kinane"
- "Paul Stowe"
- "Peter Kinane"
- "Paul Stowe"
- "Peter Kinane"
- "Bill Hobba" (The Hobbit)
For example one can not on scientific grinds ...
Bwah ha, ha, ha, LOL
... prefer SR over LET since they are equally in accord with
experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
which modern physics has shown is very important.
But, if they are indistinguishable, BOTH! must have said symmetry.
At issue is NOT symmetry, but the phiolosophy, specifically that
underpinning of said obvious observed symmetry.
Yes, I like to include philosophy in the "symmetry" (or coherence,
coherence and coherence) too.
Of course... The so-called 'beauty' of symmetry is pure unadulterated
philosophy. Worse, for many, it has taken on a religious perspective.
They worship it! Sadly, the Hobbit is one of those...
Thus on the grounds of being more in accord with unifying principles
from other areas it is to be preferred.
One wonders how, given the FACT! that these both are indistinguishable,
both mathematically & observationally, this reasoning is sound for
the objective viewpoint.
Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may not
be those of another, ...
Sure. Another equal philosophy is that there exist NO! such
'principles'. That every prinicple must have founding processes
and properties. To quit at claiming 'principle' is in fact
a shallow cop-out.
Indeed, though this did not occur to me at point of posting. So, and
this too is probably a waste of time,
:)..., Likely
to Bill: Let's have at least one example of a "unifying principle[] from
[any area]".
... so one's gotta relate systems with each other for greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".
This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy.
I'm not clear on what you're saying.
I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned. We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the processes
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.
[Snip of rest]
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
30 Jul 2005 03:40:22 PM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:2q7ne155lt01r0jnfs9cu3564j9er2gus5@4ax.com...
- On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:43:43 +0100, "Peter Kinane"
- "Paul Stowe"
- "Peter Kinane"
- "Paul Stowe"
- "Peter Kinane"
- "Bill Hobba" (The Hobbit)
For example one can not on scientific grinds ...
Bwah ha, ha, ha, LOL
... prefer SR over LET since they are equally in accord with
experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
which modern physics has shown is very important.
But, if they are indistinguishable, BOTH! must have said symmetry.
At issue is NOT symmetry, but the phiolosophy, specifically that
underpinning of said obvious observed symmetry.
Yes, I like to include philosophy in the "symmetry" (or coherence,
coherence and coherence) too.
Of course... The so-called 'beauty' of symmetry is pure unadulterated
philosophy. Worse, for many, it has taken on a religious perspective.
They worship it! Sadly, the Hobbit is one of those...
Thus on the grounds of being more in accord with unifying
principles
from other areas it is to be preferred.
One wonders how, given the FACT! that these both are
indistinguishable,
both mathematically & observationally, this reasoning is sound for
the objective viewpoint.
Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may
not
be those of another, ...
Sure. Another equal philosophy is that there exist NO! such
'principles'. That every prinicple must have founding processes
and properties. To quit at claiming 'principle' is in fact
a shallow cop-out.
Indeed, though this did not occur to me at point of posting. So, and
this too is probably a waste of time,
:)..., Likely
to Bill: Let's have at least one example of a "unifying principle[] from
[any area]".
... so one's gotta relate systems with each other for greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".
This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy.
I'm not clear on what you're saying.
I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned. We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the
processes
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.
Still rather vague.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
30 Jul 2005 03:55:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:2q7ne155lt01r0jnfs9cu3564j9er2gus5@4ax.com...
I'm not clear on what you're saying.
I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned. We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the rocesses
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.
Still rather vague.
Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.
Paul Stow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
31 Jul 2005 08:46:51 AM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:gbpne15amu1n0tlp7cfgc6pfoghijgdpme@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:2q7ne155lt01r0jnfs9cu3564j9er2gus5@4ax.com...
I'm not clear on what you're saying.
I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our
current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned. We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the
rocesses
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given
sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.
Still rather vague.
Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.
For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".
news:ir2ne19ks64o4khuki909gs716hmpa001u@4ax.com...
"This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
31 Jul 2005 10:04:52 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:46:51 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:gbpne15amu1n0tlp7cfgc6pfoghijgdpme@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:2q7ne155lt01r0jnfs9cu3564j9er2gus5@4ax.com...
I'm not clear on what you're saying.
I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned. We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the rocesses
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.
Still rather vague.
Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.
For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".
The common term is 'Scientific Realism'.
See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
For a good discussion of this.
The sub category is mechanical causalilty. This holds that all of
the natural universe processes & properties can be traced back to
causal mechanistic elements, even those involving quantum phenomena.
This is in opposition to logical (empirical) positivism, see:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/mach1.htm
Contrasts at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
news:ir2ne19ks64o4khuki909gs716hmpa001u@4ax.com...
"This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."
Hopefully this clarifies the statement.
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
31 Jul 2005 01:57:33 PM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:p0npe1191v1s636jdgunsgcke6mfph7sgh@4ax.com...
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:46:51 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:gbpne15amu1n0tlp7cfgc6pfoghijgdpme@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie>
wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:2q7ne155lt01r0jnfs9cu3564j9er2gus5@4ax.com...
I'm not clear on what you're saying.
I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to
simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our
current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned.
We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame
them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the
rocesses
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given
sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.
Still rather vague.
Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.
For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".
The common term is 'Scientific Realism'.
See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
For a good discussion of this.
The sub category is mechanical causalilty. This holds that all of
the natural universe processes & properties can be traced back to
causal mechanistic elements, even those involving quantum phenomena.
This is in opposition to logical (empirical) positivism, see:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/mach1.htm
Contrasts at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
news:ir2ne19ks64o4khuki909gs716hmpa001u@4ax.com...
"This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."
Hopefully this clarifies the statement.
Paul Stowe
You are not clear regarding what statement you are referring to "above", you
are snipping excessively, and you do make the point directly in reply to my
statement:
"Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may not be
those of another, so one's gotta relate systems with each other for greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".".
PS: "This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."
And of course Bill's stuff is a mess:
"For example one
can not on scientific grinds prefer SR over LET since they are equally in
accord with experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
which modern physics has shown is very important. Thus on the grounds of
being more in accord with unifying principles from other areas it is to be
preferred.".
Essentially he says that "one can not on scientific grinds prefer SR over
LET [] - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry which modern
physics has shown is very important." He is treating "modern physics" as
distinct from "science".
In my opening I said to him
"Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of experience of
you, [I] may not get into a prolonged exchange.". Now I say to you that
perhaps it should be clear to me that you do not wish to be clear.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
31 Jul 2005 03:04:39 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dcj6l0$ol6$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:p0npe1191v1s636jdgunsgcke6mfph7sgh@4ax.com...
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:46:51 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie>
wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:gbpne15amu1n0tlp7cfgc6pfoghijgdpme@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie>
wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:2q7ne155lt01r0jnfs9cu3564j9er2gus5@4ax.com...
I'm not clear on what you're saying.
I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to
simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our
current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned.
We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame
them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the
rocesses
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given
sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.
Still rather vague.
Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.
For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".
The common term is 'Scientific Realism'.
See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
For a good discussion of this.
The sub category is mechanical causalilty. This holds that all of
the natural universe processes & properties can be traced back to
causal mechanistic elements, even those involving quantum phenomena.
This is in opposition to logical (empirical) positivism, see:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/mach1.htm
Contrasts at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
news:ir2ne19ks64o4khuki909gs716hmpa001u@4ax.com...
"This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."
Hopefully this clarifies the statement.
Paul Stowe
You are not clear regarding what statement you are referring to "above",
you
are snipping excessively, and you do make the point directly in reply to
my
statement:
"Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may not
be
those of another, so one's gotta relate systems with each other for
greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".".
PS: "This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."
My mistake; you did not actually snip, and you are clearly saying that my
comment is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy.
As regards what you are claiming about my statement: This is complicated in
that my statement refers to "unifying principles" - a concept which may be
completely lacking in rigour. So, perhaps if I adjust my principle to the
following, we may be able to proceed:
"Effect, through relationship 'of forces'".
"Rigour of value, through relationship of models".
You get to show why you think this is a component of the "alternative causal
mechanistic philosophy".
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
01 Aug 2005 04:42:16 AM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dcjaj3$ptf$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dcj6l0$ol6$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:p0npe1191v1s636jdgunsgcke6mfph7sgh@4ax.com...
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:46:51 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie>
wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:gbpne15amu1n0tlp7cfgc6pfoghijgdpme@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie>
wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:2q7ne155lt01r0jnfs9cu3564j9er2gus5@4ax.com...
I'm not clear on what you're saying.
I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to
simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further,
as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our
current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be
discerned.
We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame
them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the
rocesses
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given
sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to
understand.
Still rather vague.
Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.
For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".
The common term is 'Scientific Realism'.
See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
For a good discussion of this.
The sub category is mechanical causalilty. This holds that all of
the natural universe processes & properties can be traced back to
causal mechanistic elements, even those involving quantum phenomena.
This is in opposition to logical (empirical) positivism, see:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/mach1.htm
Contrasts at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
news:ir2ne19ks64o4khuki909gs716hmpa001u@4ax.com...
"This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."
Hopefully this clarifies the statement.
Paul Stowe
You are not clear regarding what statement you are referring to "above",
you
are snipping excessively, and you do make the point directly in reply to
my
statement:
"Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may
not
be
those of another, so one's gotta relate systems with each other for
greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".".
PS: "This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."
My mistake; you did not actually snip, and you are clearly saying that my
comment is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy.
As regards what you are claiming about my statement: This is complicated
in
that my statement refers to "unifying principles" - a concept which may be
completely lacking in rigour. So, perhaps if I adjust my principle to the
following, we may be able to proceed:
Correction: So, perhaps if I take just the principle, we may be able to
proceed:
"Effect, through relationship 'of forces'".
"Rigour of value, through relationship of models".
You get to show why you think this is a component of the "alternative
causal
mechanistic philosophy".
This may be of interest to you, if you are preparing a supportive argument
to your statement above:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
Much as Post-modernism is set out as finding the Scientific Realism concepts
"knowledge, unobservables (and observables), empirical, truth" to be
problematical, so do I.
However, unlike the "fixing up" "underdetermination argument" on "The
Empiricist Challenge",
"we will [n]ever have any evidence that ["total sciences"] embodies
knowledge of unobservables", the authors of the essay seem to fall back on
the concepts "knowledge and observerables" and also include "evidence". I do
not feature these concepts, nor "truth", preferring the principle
"coherence, coherence and coherence according to whatever criteria one
fancies". So, it seems to me that Effectuationism is a quite distinct
model - as I already implied here:
news:dcg6tp$rs6$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
"[Lame] is probably a good description of pretty well everything that, up to
recently, passed for philosophy []".
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Eff. and Classical Mechanics |
01 Aug 2005 03:09:25 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dcjaj3$ptf$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dcj6l0$ol6$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:p0npe1191v1s636jdgunsgcke6mfph7sgh@4ax.com...
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:46:51 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie>
wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:gbpne15amu1n0tlp7cfgc6pfoghijgdpme@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie>
wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:2q7ne155lt01r0jnfs9cu3564j9er2gus5@4ax.com...
I'm not clear on what you're saying.
I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to
simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further,
as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our
current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be
discerned.
We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame
them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the
rocesses
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given
sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to
understand.
Still rather vague.
Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.
For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".
The common term is 'Scientific Realism'.
See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
For a good discussion of this.
The sub category is mechanical causalilty. This holds that all of
the natural universe processes & properties can be traced back to
causal mechanistic elements, even those involving quantum phenomena.
This is in opposition to logical (empirical) positivism, see:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/mach1.htm
Contrasts at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
news:ir2ne19ks64o4khuki909gs716hmpa001u@4ax.com...
"This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."
Hopefully this clarifies the statement.
Paul Stowe
You are not clear regarding what statement you are referring to "above",
you
are snipping excessively, and you do make the point directly in reply to
my
statement:
"Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may
not
be
those of another, so one's gotta relate systems with each other for
greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".".
PS: "This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."
My mistake; you did not actually snip, and you are clearly saying that my
comment is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy.
As regards what you are claiming about my statement: This is complicated
in
that my statement refers to "unifying principles" - a concept which may be
completely lacking in rigour. So, perhaps if I adjust my principle to the
following, we may be able to proceed:
Correction: So, perhaps if I take just the principle, we may be able to
proceed:
"Effect, through relationship 'of forces'".
"Rigour of value, through relationship of models".
You get to show why you think this is a component of the "alternative
causal
mechanistic philosophy".
This may be of interest to you, if you are preparing a supportive argument
to your statement above:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
Much as Post-modernism is set out as finding the Scientific Realism concepts
"knowledge, unobservables (and observables), empirical, truth" to be
problematical, so do I.
However, unlike the "fixing up" "underdetermination argument" on "The
Empiricist Challenge",
"we will [n]ever have any evidence that ["total sciences"] embodies
knowledge of unobservables", the authors of the essay seem to fall back on
the concepts "knowledge and observerables" and also include "evidence". I do
not feature these concepts, nor "truth", preferring the principle
"coherence, coherence and coherence according to whatever criteria one
fancies". So, it seems to me that Effectuationism is a quite distinct
model - as I already implied here:
news:dcg6tp$rs6$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
"[Lame] is probably a good description of pretty well everything that, up to
recently, passed for philosophy []".
I should have added, as it is appropriate to the context, that finding
short-comings of systems is one thing, going on and producing an alternative
system such as "Effectuationism" (both the philosophy model and the physics
navigation model, etc.) is quite another.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
