science wars. footnote
smw
We all laughed when Alan Sokal wrote a deliberately silly
paper entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a
Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", and managed
to get it accepted by a refereed journal of social and cultural
studies, Social Text.
But now I hear that two brothers have managed to publish 3
meaningless papers in physics journals as a hoax - and even
get Ph.D. degrees in physics from Bourgogne University in
the process! The theses are available in PDF format online,
at least for now:
Igor Bogdanov
ETAT TOPOLOGIQUE DE L'ESPACE TEMPS A ECHELLE 0
http://tel.ccsd.cnrs.fr/documents/archives0/00/00/15/03/index_fr.html
Grichka Bogdanov
FLUCTUATIONS QUANTIQUES DE LA SIGNATURE DE LA METRIQUE A L'ECHELLE DE
PLANCK
(Quantum fluctuations of the signature of the metric at the Planck
scale)
http://tel.ccsd.cnrs.fr/documents/archives0/00/00/15/02/index_fr.html
They have also published at least four papers based on their
theses:
Grichka Bogdanov and Igor Bogdanov,
Topological field theory of the initial singularity of spacetime,
Classical and Quantum Gravity 18 (2001), 4341-4372.
Grichka Bogdanov and Igor Bogdanov,
Spacetime Metric and the KMS Condition at the Planck Scale,
Annals of Physics, 295 (2002), 90-97.
Grichka Bogdanov and Igor Bogdanov,
KMS space-time at the Planck scale,
Nuovo Cimento, 117B (2002) 417-424.
Igor Bogdanov,
Topological origin of inertia,
Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, 51 (2001), 1153-1236.
Here's the abstract of Igor Bogdanov's thesis:
We propose in this research a new solution regarding the
existence and the content of the initial spacetime
singularity. In the context of topological field theory we
consider that the initial singularity of space-time
corresponds to a zero size singular gravitational instanton
characterized by a Riemannian metric configuration (++++) in
dimension D = 4. Connected with some unexpected topological
data corresponding to the zero scale of space-time, the
initial singularity is thus not considered in terms of
divergences of physical fields but can be resolved in the
frame of topological field theory. We get this result from
the physical observation that the pre-spacetime is in a
thermal equilibrium at the Planck scale. Therefore it should
be subject to the KMS condition. We consequently consider
that this KMS state might correspond to a unification
between "physical state" (Planck scale) and "topological
state" (zero scale). Then it is suggested that the "zero
scale singularity" can be understood in terms of topological
invariants, in particular the first Donaldson invariant.
Therefore, we here introduce a new topological index,
connected with 0 scale, of the form Z_{beta = 0} = Tr
(-1)^s, which we call the "singularity invariant".
Interestingly, this invariant corresponds also to the
invariant topological current yielded by the hyperfinite II*
von Neumann algebra describing the zero scale of space-time.
In such a context we conjecture that the problem of inertial
interaction might be explained in terms of topological
amplitude connected with the singular zero size
gravitational instanton corresponding to the initial
singularity of spacetime.
His thesis director was Daniel Sternheimer, and the
"rapporteuers" were Roman Jackiw of MIT, and Jack Morava of
John Hopkins.
Here's the abstract of Grichka Bogdanov's thesis:
We propose hereafter that the signature of the Space-Time
metric (+++-) is not anymore frozen at the Planck scale and
presents quantum fluctuations (++++/-) until 0 scale where
it becomes Euclidean (++++). (i) At the albraic level we
suggest an oscillation path (3,1) (4,0) excluding (2,2). We
built the quotient topological space describing the
superposition of the Lorentzian and the Riemanian metrics.
In terms of quantum groups we evidence a relation between
q-deformation and deformation of the signature. We have
obtained a new algebraic construction (a new cocycle
bicrossproducts by twisting) which allowed us to unify the
Lorentzian and the Euclidean signatures within a unique
quantum group structure. Moreover the q-deformation of
space-time shows that the natural structures of q-Minkowski
and q-Riemanian spaces are linked by semiduality. (ii)
Regarding the physical motivations we suggest that at the
Planck Scale the Space-Time is in KMS state. Within the
limits of the KMS holomorph strip, the beta timelike
parameter is complex. We propose an extension of
relativistic gravity which begins at the Planck Scale with
the Lagrangian R + R2 + RR*. Then, the infrared limit of the
theory is given at the Planck Scale by the Einstein term in
R and corresponds to the Lorentzian metric while the
ultraviolet limit is given at beta=0 scale by the
topological term RR* and corresponds to the Euclidean metric
( topological sector). We propose a duality between
instantons and monopoles in 4 dimensions giving a
representation of the superposition of the metrics. (iii) On
the cosmological plan we suggest to describe the Initial
Singularity of Space Time by a topological invariant I(S) =
Tr(-1)^S which is analog to the first Donaldson invariant.
The initial singularity must be considered as a singular
0-size gravitational instanton. The physical observables are
therefore replaced by cycles of homology in the moduli space
of gravitational Instantons. We propose a conjecture
regarding the existence of a topological amplitude
associated to a "topological expansion phase" which preceeds
the classical cosmological expansion. This topological phase
is also able to be described by the flow of weights of the
II* hyperfinite factor type corresponding to the beta=0
initial singularity.
His thesis director was Daniel Sternheimer, and the
"rapporteuers" were Shahn Majid of Cambridge University,
Costas Kounnas of the Ecole Normale Superieure, and Dmitiri
Gurevitch of Valenciennes University.
Can anyone confirm or disconfirm the rumors I've heard about
this? I hear that Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, journalists and
science fiction writers, both in their late 40's, began by
interviewing a number of prominent French string theorists
to master the jargon. After writing these papers, to prepare
the ground for their thesis defense they spread rumors that
they were geniuses and their theses were a milestone in
theoretical physics. For their thesis defense they rented a
hall in the prestigeous Ecole Polytechnique, arranged a big
dinner with the president, invited the TV, ... and passed.
I don't know if these rumors are true. I can however assure
you that the abstracts seem like gibberish to me, even
though I know what most of the buzzwords mean. The journal
articles make for rather strange reading (you can easily get
ahold of them, because they are appended to the PDF files
containing the theses). Some parts almost seem to make
sense, but the more carefully you read them, the less sense
they make. Here's the beginning of their paper "Topological
Origin of Inertia":
The phenomenon of inertia - or "pseudo-force" according to E. Mach
[1] - has recently been presented by J. P. Vigier as one of the
"unsolved mysteries of modern physics". Indeed our point of view
is that this important question, which is well formulated in the
context of Mach's principle, cannot be resolved or even understood
in the framework of conventional field theory.
Here we suggest a novel approach, a direct outcome of the topological
field theory proposed by Edward Witten in 1988 [3]. According to
this approach, beyond the interpretation propoosed by Mach, we
consider
inertia as a *topological field*, linked to the topological charge
Q = 1 of the "singular zero size gravitational instanton" [4] which,
according to [5], can be identified with the initial singularity of
space-time in the standard model.
It goes on to discuss the relation between N = 2 supergravity,
Donaldson theory, KMS states and the Foucault pendulum experiment,
which "cannot be explained satisfactorily in either classical or
relativistic mechanics". Eventually it concludes that "whatever
the orientation, the plane of oscillation of Foucault's pendulum
is necessarily aligned with the initial singularity marking the
origin of physical space S^3, that of Euclidean space E^4 (described
by the family of instants I_beta of whatever radius beta), and,
finally, that of Lorentzian space-time M^4."
Zounds! =8-0
Lewis Mammel
This is the text of an article posted by John Baez to sci.physics.research,
which has numerous follow-ups. There is a near universal consensus that the
papers are nonsense and the Bogdanovs are poseurs. It seems they must be
since they have a history including a French TV show. Most of the respondents
try to slough the whole thing off, although it's quite a bombshell IMHO.
The Bogdanovs also reply in their own defense, inviting criticism etc. of
their work, but even there they claim that at Harvard, no less, people
laughed at their stuff believing that it was a hoax, then took it
seriously when informed otherwise.
It was also noted that a NYT reporter was going to do a story, but dropped
the idea when convinced that the B's were serious. Any way you look at it,
this is really something - far surpassing Sokal, I think.
Read THE END OF SCIENCE people! This is it! Horgan called it all the way!
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Marko Amnell
> marko_...@hotmail.com (Marko Amnell) wrote:
> > I was reminded of Horgan's _The End of Science_ recently
> > when I read Steven Weinberg's review of the latest overhyped
> > complexity theory book _A New Kind of Science_ by Stephen
> > Wolfram. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15762). As near
> > as I can tell, the best that Wolfram (actually one of his
> > research assisstants) has done is to produce an unpublished
> > proof (which he admits may have errors) that a certain simple
> > cellular automaton can emulate a universal Turing machine.
> > On the basis of this modest achievement, he then claims that:
> > "Three centuries ago science was transformed by the dramatic
> > new idea that rules based on mathematical equations could be
> > used to describe the natural world. My purpose in this book
> > is to initiate another such transformation...." Read the
> > Weinberg piece if you want to know more; it's pretty clear
> > and shows why Wolfram is having such outrageous delusions
> > of grandeur.
>
> The online version of the NY Review article has pretty
> illustrations too. If Wolfram's science doesn't pan out,
> he could always write a book on knitting Irish lace.
The book itself, which is almost 1,200 pages long, has literally
hundreds of these pictures of his favourite cellular automata. I
tracked down the footnote where he talks about the central result,
and this is what it says:
"The fact that 1D cellular automata can be universal was discussed
by Alvy Ray Smith in 1970 - who set up an 18-color nearest-neighbor
cellular automaton rule capable emulating Marvin Minsky's 7-state
4-color universal Turing machine ... But without any particular
reason to think it would be interesting, almost nothing was done on
finding simpler universal 1D cellular automata. In 1984 I suggested
that cellular automata showing what I called class 4 behavior
should be universal - and I identified some simple rules (such as
k=2, r=2 totalistic code 20) as explicit candidates. A piece in
Scientific American in 1985 describing my interest in finding simple
1D universal cellular automata led me to receive a large number of
proofs of the fact (already well known to me) that 1D cellular
automata can in principle emulate Turing machines. In 1989 Kristian
Lindgren and Mats Norddahl constructed a 7-color nearest-neighbor
cellular automaton that could emulate Minsky's 7,4 univeral Turing
machine, and showed that in general a rule with s+k+2 colors could
emulate an s-state k-color Turing machine. Following my ideas about¨
class 4 cellular automata I had come by 1985 to suspect that rule
110 must be univeral. And when I started working on the writing of
this book in 1991, I decided to try to establish this for certain.
The general outline of what had to be done was fairly clear - but
there were an immense number of details to be handled, and I asked
a young assistant of mine named Matthew Cook to investigate them.
His initial results were encouraging, but after a few months he
became increasingly convinced that rule 110 would never in fact be
proved universal. I insisted, however, that he keep on trying, and
over the next several years he developed a systematic computer-aided
design system for working with structures in rule 110. Using this he
was then in 1994 successfully able to find the main elements of the
proof. Many details were filled in over the next year, some mistakes
were corrected in 1998, and the specific version in the note below
was constructed in 2001. Like most proofs of universality, the final
proof he found is conceptually quiet straightforward, but is filled
with many excruciatingly elaborate details. And among these details
it is certainly possible that a few errors still remain. But if so,
I believe they can be overcome by the same general methods that have
been used in the proof so far." (p. 1115)
My knowledge of this subject goes no further than having taken a
course in computational complexity theory a few years ago. But
Marvin Minsky, mentioned in the quote above, sometimes contributes
to this newsgroup, so maybe he can comment on the significance of
Wolfram and Cook's result.
Michael S. Morris
Wednesday, the 30th of October, 2002
Umm, Silke's post seems to be gone by the time I
got here to respond, but I read through it cursorily
yesterday.
I guess I'd say simply that it's perfectly believable
to me that this is all true---that hoaxed "physics"
papers of this sort got published in refereed science
journals. I mean, I personally get a couple of sentences
into each of the abstracts and am at the point where
the jargon is thick enough and well-enough used that I
cannot tell if it is serious or not, and I doubt that I
could decide without a great deal of work, working through
the paper. But, if I were asked to referee it, I'd
immediately respond by saying "Not me---this is outside
my expertise." And there's the problem, since the quality
of peer-review depends on the work that the referee is
willing to do. I've had things in papers sail past
referees without question, which should have been
questioned, and other things where the referee nixed
totally correct stuff.
The problem to me is that a lot of this stuff is
highly mathematical, and moreso math than physics.
One plays with what the theory might be far beyond
any anchor in experiment or observation. And so,
it very easy to get off into never-never land, where
only a handful of people in the world know whether you
are talking total nonsense or not.
I'd say if this is correct it out-Sokals Sokal,
and does, in fact, point to something that is
deeply wrong with the whole business of academic theoretical
physics. Namely, I think a whole lot of junk does get
published because, well, academic physicists like any
other academics, need to publish. It can be junk
even if it is technically right and, say, not a hoax. There are
library shelves full of unimportant papers that no one
will ever read, teach nothing to anybody, and so do not
ever get incorporated into the "physics" that is the
social construction of the community of phyicists, and
of course the natural construction of the natural world.
In that environment, it seems to me it is unsurprising that
hoax papers could be perpetrated to the extent of being
published. It would be interesting to learn how many such
papers these guys submitted to journals, and if any problems
with referees were to be had at all.
However, I would also say that, as a theoretical
physicist, I would not be particularly worried about
the state of physics itself, and what we can trust and
can't trust about its results. The point is, any paper
which uses the phrase "gravitational instanton", let alone
incorrectly, is already far out along a speculative limb
of theoretical physics. And out there, success isn't so much
in the getting published as in the getting
used as the basis for new work.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Lewis Mammel
"Michael S. Morris" wrote:
>
> In that environment, it seems to me it is unsurprising that
> hoax papers could be perpetrated to the extent of being
> published.
We're talkin' hoax Ph.D.'s here - a pair of 'em.
Piled High and Deep,
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Don Tuite
I'm curious to see how New Scientist reports it and the letters that
generates.
Don
Michael S. Morris
Thursday, the 31st of October, 2002
I said:
In that environment, it seems to me it is unsurprising that
hoax papers could be perpetrated to the extent of being
published.
Lew:
We're talkin' hoax Ph.D.'s here - a pair of 'em.
Yeah, but I don't understand the process over there in
Europe, I guess. And I have no sense of what is
the University of Bourgogne. I mean, did they do
an oral examination under a thesis advisor with
outside examiners, or no? Also, there are crackpot
Ph.D.'s from, say, the Creation Reserach Institute and
such. So, I don't know. I never heard of them, their
abstracts are outside of my expertise to say they
are either sensible or full of shit, so I don't
know what to say.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Lewis Mammel
"Michael S. Morris" wrote:
>
> Thursday, the 31st of October, 2002
>
> I said:
> In that environment, it seems to me it is unsurprising that
> hoax papers could be perpetrated to the extent of being
> published.
> Lew:
> We're talkin' hoax Ph.D.'s here - a pair of 'em.
>
> Yeah, but I don't understand the process over there in
> Europe, I guess. And I have no sense of what is
> the University of Bourgogne. I mean, did they do
> an oral examination under a thesis advisor with
> outside examiners, or no?
Cf. http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/bogdanovs.htm
and better: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/bogdanov2.htm
... which has some account of this process. It's been an
ongoing saga since 1992, and the B's were persistent and
resourceful. Apparently it was not a case of just pulling the
wool over anybody's eyes, but rather of exploiting the ambiguities
of the standards in the tenuous realm of Quantum Gravity etc.
The B's, whether by calculation or instinct, showed a remarkable
talent for "gaming the system" and their efforts have focused
a spotlight on the real problems of this field, which seems to
be slipping all bonds of reason and discipline.
BTW, the compiler of this fascinating material, who is seems to
be close to those in the know, and who reports his own interogatories
of the B's, is a bit of crackpot himself in suggesting that this
development is the work of Dubya - I kid you not.
New word for me: edulcorate = "make less harsh" ( i.e. "sweeten" )
... then people thought that they were academics and
edulcorated their judgements.
> Also, there are crackpot
> Ph.D.'s from, say, the Creation Reserach Institute and
> such. So, I don't know.
It's nothing like this. Top people are involved.
> I never heard of them, their
> abstracts are outside of my expertise to say they
> are either sensible or full of shit, so I don't
> know what to say.
This is the general position, and the rubbing point.
It seems that everybody's work is so idiosyncratic that
each is his own judge, and authenticity is conferred only
by authority and association. These guys muscled their way
in and nobody knows what to do it about it. IMHO, just
very very damning. An incredible situation.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Michael S. Morris
Thursday, the 31st of October, 2002
Lew:
This is the general position, and the rubbing point.
It seems that everybody's work is so idiosyncratic that
each is his own judge, and authenticity is conferred only
by authority and association. These guys muscled their way
in and nobody knows what to do it about it. IMHO, just
very very damning. An incredible situation.
I am wholly agreed that it is damning of much of what passes
for legitimate work in theoretical physics.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Chris L
Surely Sokal and Bricmont will now come out with a long volume damning
natural science. The human sciences are out, and the natural sciences
are out... that leaves religion I guess. I won't be holding my breath.
ark
> Cf. http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/bogdanovs.htm
>
> and better: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/bogdanov2.htm
>
> ... which has some account of this process. It's been an
> ongoing saga since 1992, and the B's were persistent and
> resourceful. Apparently it was not a case of just pulling the
> wool over anybody's eyes, but rather of exploiting the ambiguities
> of the standards in the tenuous realm of Quantum Gravity etc.
>
> The B's, whether by calculation or instinct, showed a remarkable
> talent for "gaming the system" and their efforts have focused
> a spotlight on the real problems of this field, which seems to
> be slipping all bonds of reason and discipline.
>
> BTW, the compiler of this fascinating material, who is seems to
> be close to those in the know, and who reports his own interogatories
> of the B's, is a bit of crackpot himself in suggesting that this
> development is the work of Dubya - I kid you not.
>
> Lew Mammel, Jr.
You think so? Check
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/bog-werk.htm
and ask yourself how the "compiler" of this material happens to be a
referee of
a habilitation (a higher than PhD, as in Germany and some European
countries) of Lewandowski whom Baez values so much? Who is the
cracpot? Who is the expert?
ark
(Arkadiusz Jadczyk)
John McCarthy
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/bog-werk.htm
and ask yourself how the "compiler" of this material happens
to be a referee of a habilitation (a higher than PhD, as in
Germany and some European countries) of Lewandowski whom
Baez values so much? Who is the cracpot? Who is the expert?
Ah the evil Habilitation. The effect of the Habilitationschrift
requirement is to keep the young scientist or scholar under the
thumb of his elders for as long as 20 years after he gets his
PhD. I know one German whose Habilitationschrift in computer
theorem proving was refused by his scientifically conservative
supervisor who worked in numerical analysis. He had to acquire a
scientific reputation and academic appointments in the US and
Canada before he could get a professorship in Germany.
In America and Britain, with a PhD one can be an independent
scientist if one can get research support. I shudder every time
I think of what I would have had to go through to found a new
field as I did. Who would have been my Habilitation supervisor?
My original PhD supervisor wouldn't have been interested in
artificial intelligence.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Ron Hardin
> In America and Britain, with a PhD one can be an independent
> scientist if one can get research support. I shudder every time
> I think of what I would have had to go through to found a new
> field as I did. Who would have been my Habilitation supervisor?
> My original PhD supervisor wouldn't have been interested in
> artificial intelligence.
It would have been sort of like having a job.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
smw
John McCarthy wrote:
> Arkadiusz Jadczyk includes
> http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/bog-werk.htm
>
> and ask yourself how the "compiler" of this material happens
> to be a referee of a habilitation (a higher than PhD, as in
> Germany and some European countries) of Lewandowski whom
> Baez values so much? Who is the cracpot? Who is the expert?
>
> Ah the evil Habilitation. The effect of the Habilitationschrift
> requirement is to keep the young scientist or scholar under the
> thumb of his elders for as long as 20 years after he gets his
> PhD. I know one German whose Habilitationschrift in computer
> theorem proving was refused by his scientifically conservative
> supervisor who worked in numerical analysis. He had to acquire a
> scientific reputation and academic appointments in the US and
> Canada before he could get a professorship in Germany.
And if you get the Habilitation but no call, they can force you to teach
for free.
R.A. Leonard
> Read THE END OF SCIENCE people! This is it! Horgan called it all the way!
I've recently done so. Wonderful book. Best tip yet from
rab, imho, and that is saying something, because there have
been some very good ones.
The only author whose writing has resonated in a similar way
is Morris Kline, but only because he too is so lucid. But
Kline, the man is quite removed from his work. Horgan has a
vibrant and intelligent presence in this book. His
technique--interviewing such a broad range of scientists and
philosophers--allows him to cover great swaths of
intellectual territory. His exploraton of the limits of
science as we have known it, is utterly compelling.
Actually, simply presenting the collection of interviews
with la creme de la creme of thinkers of the last half of
the 20th century, is an impressive achievement. Chomsky,
Popper, Feynman, Gell-Mann, Bohm, Minsky, Kuhn, Wheeler,
Weinberg, Witten et al-- all your favourites including the
march of the Nobel Laureates.
I loved the way he included his own observations of the
style and character of his subjects, and the fact that he
was neither arrogant nor obsequious about it--which, it
seems to me, would require some doing.
He has published something new, not out yet in Canada, but
due next month:
Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between
Science and Spirituality
Has anyone had a go?
I have just had a look at Amazon; apparently it appeared 2
days ago.
I look forward to it.
Rose Anne
--
__________________________________________
R.A. Leonard
Ottawa Canada
http://www.raleonard.com/
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> Actually, simply presenting the collection of interviews
> with la creme de la creme of thinkers of the last half of
> the 20th century, is an impressive achievement. Chomsky,
> Popper, Feynman, Gell-Mann, Bohm, Minsky, Kuhn, Wheeler,
> Weinberg, Witten et al-- all your favourites including the
> march of the Nobel Laureates.
My favorite was Gell-Mann. Plenty of juicy back-biting among
the scientificati, kind of like reading a Lillian Hellman memoir.
Let we forget, science has had a lot of spectacular failures recently:
- fusion, cold and otherwise
- supercollider cost overruns
- travel to other planets (what good is the Space Shuttle anyway?)
The last one's not really a failure, but it's not a hootin' success.
I wonder if science is no longer romantic, will science fiction also
go by-the-by.
> I loved the way he included his own observations of the
> style and character of his subjects, and the fact that he
> was neither arrogant nor obsequious about it--which, it
> seems to me, would require some doing.
That was excellent. He really fleshed the characters out.
Have the physicists ever made a list of the top 10 unsolved
problems in physics, like the mathematicians are fond of?
Lewis Mammel
tomca...@yaNOSPAMhoo.com wrote:
>
> Have the physicists ever made a list of the top 10 unsolved
> problems in physics, like the mathematicians are fond of?
A book came out in 1977 called the Encyclopaedia of Ignorance.
Consciousness, Cosmology, Complexity ... most of it stands pretty
much as it was 25 years ago.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
PSmith9626
All of these are engineering, not science.
best
penny
>- fusion, cold and otherwise
>- supercollider cost overruns
>- travel to other planets (what good is the Space Shuttle anyway?)
>I wonder if science is no longer romantic, will science fiction also
>go by-the-by.
Said, as we are cracking the human genetic code, have verified that universe is
accelerating in its acceleration, solved Fermat's conjecture, and are getting
experimental data on the first microsections of the big bang.
We have just discovered colliding Black Holes, and have discovered that
neutrinos have mass--which starts to very the grand unified particle theories.
PSmith9626
These are very complex and deep questions. We have indeed made progress on many
of them.
best
penny
see my previous post
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> Said, as we are cracking the human genetic code, have verified that universe
> is accelerating in its acceleration, solved Fermat's conjecture, and are
> getting experimental data on the first microsections of the big bang.
> We have just discovered colliding Black Holes, and have discovered that
> neutrinos have mass--which starts to very the grand unified particle theories.
I think all the big discoveries are next to come in biology.
Have they ever decided if the proton decays or not?
Richard Harter
<rale...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Lewis Mammel wrote:
>> Read THE END OF SCIENCE people! This is it! Horgan called it all the way!
>
>
>I've recently done so. Wonderful book. Best tip yet from
>rab, imho, and that is saying something, because there have
>been some very good ones.
[snip]
>I loved the way he included his own observations of the
>style and character of his subjects, and the fact that he
>was neither arrogant nor obsequious about it--which, it
>seems to me, would require some doing.
[snip]
It is a wonderful book, all that you say that it is, and yet ...
It is a deeply flawed book, hag-ridden by Horgan's own personal
agenda. It is Horgan himself who is at the end of his affair with
science. Like a disenchanted lover preparing to leave, he catalogs
faults where he once enumerated delights. His intelligence and his
skill with language enables him to rationalize beautifully.
"Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age"
indeed! We may well be in the twilight of the Scientific Age; science
is, after all, a social institution and as such a consumer of
resources. Science is supported by the dole, i.e., the public purse.
That purse, however, is controlled by statesmen whose first priority
is their mistresses and their wars. It may well be that our goodly
leaders shall subject institutional science to a dose of intellectual
welfare reform. That prospect, however, is the subject of that most
dismal of all pseudosciences, futurology.
In many sciences, I am thinking of evolutionary biology in particular
but the remark holds broadly, we have some grand narratives that, when
examined closely, are skeletons of pipe cleaners held together by duct
tape and styrofoam. Thus:
Q: Do we know how life works?
A: No.
Q: Do we know how ecological systems work?
A: No.
Q: Do we know how evolution works?
A: No.
And so on and so forth. We "know" today what we did not "know" ten
years ago, namely that most of the universe is composed of virtually
nothing of, save a set of properties that our theories say it must
have, and a label, "dark energy".
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
In the 60's people took acid to make the world weird. Now the
world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.
Lewis Mammel
Richard Harter wrote:
>
> Q: Do we know how life works?
> A: No.
Aristotle didn't know how life works either, but he asked the right
question:
Now it would appear irrational to suppose that any of either the
internal organs or the other parts is made by something external,
since one thing cannot set up a motion in another without touching
it, nor can anything be affected in any way by anything that does
not set up a motion in it. Something then of the sort we require
exists in the embryo itself ...
Then what is this something that we require? It's the secret of life!
Gee, maybe someday when we learn how life works, we'll know what it is.
Won't that be a grand and glorious day!
Lew Mammel, Jr.
PSmith9626
The secret of life is fairly easy. We are close to making life in the test
tube.
The secret of consciousness, on the other hand....
I don't mean the secret of making intelligent life.
best
penny
> It's the secret of life!
>Gee, maybe someday when we learn how life works, we'll know what it is.
What am I? Who is asking? What does it mean?
PSmith9626
Yes. It decays but very rarely ( or if you like, very slowly). This, along with
neutrino mass is the death of the standard model of particle physics and the
door opener for Grand Unification.
We will soon find experimental evidence for supersymmetry ( not superstrings)
and that will also have a big effect.
best
penny
>Have they ever decided if the proton decays or not?
>I think all the big discoveries are next to come in biology.
The big lesson seems to be that molecular and genetic biology is actually EASY.
So easy that much of it can be cracked by computer driven experiments at high
speed.
Nonlinear partial differential equations--now that is hard. I have devoted my
life to that.
PSmith9626
I don't know if my last post--about proton decay and bio--got through.
best
penny
>Message-id: <atniir$1oq$1...@news1.radix.ne
Jeff Inman
> > > Read THE END OF SCIENCE people! This is it! Horgan called it all the way!
> >
> > I've recently done so. Wonderful book. Best tip yet from
> > rab, imho, and that is saying something, because there have
> > been some very good ones.
> [snip]
>
> > I loved the way he included his own observations of the
> > style and character of his subjects, and the fact that he
> > was neither arrogant nor obsequious about it--which, it
> > seems to me, would require some doing.
> [snip]
>
> It is a wonderful book, all that you say that it is, and yet ...
>
> It is a deeply flawed book, hag-ridden by Horgan's own personal
> agenda. It is Horgan himself who is at the end of his affair with
> science. Like a disenchanted lover preparing to leave, he catalogs
> faults where he once enumerated delights. His intelligence and his
> skill with language enables him to rationalize beautifully.
As I recall (which is barely at all), his "from Complexity
to Perplexity" thing, in Scientific American [June 95], was
something of a hatchet job. I can find refs to it all over
the web, but apparently it is not public domain. Anyhow,
I think your analogy is apt; he *wants* to find nothing to
look forward to. Yeah, sure, there's a danger in depending
too heavily on simulations, but the science of complex systems
is a worthy pursuit, regardless of how many scientists you can
quote out-of-context.
It seems to me that much of the obvious progress these days
is taking place in the domain of engineering pursuits, rather
than in basic science (complex systems, perhaps, an exception),
but it seems plenty plausible to me that those technologies
(e.g. quantum computing, nanotech, computer systems) and
developed systems of information (e.g. gene expression,
metabolic pathways) will eventually provide the "telescope"
that allows new leaps. (Course, we might not like what we see.)
Furthermore, there is no way to secure the metaphysics that
underlies the objects of science. The notion that the
periodic table is somehow "solid" forever, betrays an
utter philosophical naivete. The way these things are
upset is not by someone figuring out that "everything
you know is wrong", but rather that there's a new way to
consider things, which transforms the meaning of old "facts".
> "Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age"
> indeed! We may well be in the twilight of the Scientific Age; science
> is, after all, a social institution and as such a consumer of
> resources. Science is supported by the dole, i.e., the public purse.
> That purse, however, is controlled by statesmen whose first priority
> is their mistresses and their wars. It may well be that our goodly
> leaders shall subject institutional science to a dose of intellectual
> welfare reform. That prospect, however, is the subject of that most
> dismal of all pseudosciences, futurology.
>
> In many sciences, I am thinking of evolutionary biology in particular
> but the remark holds broadly, we have some grand narratives that, when
> examined closely, are skeletons of pipe cleaners held together by duct
> tape and styrofoam. Thus:
>
> Q: Do we know how life works?
> A: No.
> Q: Do we know how ecological systems work?
> A: No.
> Q: Do we know how evolution works?
> A: No.
>
> And so on and so forth. We "know" today what we did not "know" ten
> years ago, namely that most of the universe is composed of virtually
> nothing of, save a set of properties that our theories say it must
> have, and a label, "dark energy".
Would make a great voice-over narrative, at the head of some
sci-fi movie. [I guess the third "of" is extra.] Needs
a dramtic pause, and a trace of hushed emphasis:
"... and a label, ... 'dark energy!'"
Jeff
Jeff Inman
"One thing can not set up motion in another without touching it"?
Isn't that true by definition?
And, maybe I'm past getting irritated with everything
having to be a dichotomy in Aristotle. That's his
shtick. And it's not a useless tool. After all, he was
able use it to prove that the chicken came before the egg.
Jeff
R.A. Leonard
Richard Harter wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:18:23 -0500, "R.A. Leonard"
> <rale...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Lewis Mammel wrote:
> >> Read THE END OF SCIENCE people! This is it! Horgan called it all the way!
> >
> >
> >I've recently done so. Wonderful book.
snip
> It is a wonderful book, all that you say that it is, and yet ...
>
> It is a deeply flawed book, hag-ridden by Horgan's own personal
> agenda. It is Horgan himself who is at the end of his affair with
> science. Like a disenchanted lover preparing to leave, he catalogs
> faults where he once enumerated delights.
I do not think that book could have been written without the agenda and the
passion driving it.
The sheer tenacity required to hold on to the theme through all those
conversations and keep the
vehicle on the rails, with such good humour doesn't come cheaply.
(I find it to be good humoured, but I confess he reminds me of Paul Theroux.
!Don't be put off, Meg! )
> His intelligence and his
> skill with language enables him to rationalize beautifully.
The book serves as a personal invitation to explore any one of twenty or more
topics more fully.
The fact that his contention is contentious just adds to the attraction.
much good stuff snipped
Lewis Mammel
Jeff Inman wrote:
>
> Lewis Mammel wrote:
> >
> > Richard Harter wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Q: Do we know how life works?
> > > A: No.
> >
> > Aristotle didn't know how life works either, but he asked the right
> > question:
> >
> > Now it would appear irrational to suppose that any of either the
> > internal organs or the other parts is made by something external,
> > since one thing cannot set up a motion in another without touching
> > it, nor can anything be affected in any way by anything that does
> > not set up a motion in it. Something then of the sort we require
> > exists in the embryo itself ...
> >
> > Then what is this something that we require? It's the secret of life!
> > Gee, maybe someday when we learn how life works, we'll know what it is.
> > Won't that be a grand and glorious day!
>
> "One thing can not set up motion in another without touching it"?
> Isn't that true by definition?
Not at all. It's a principle of materialism. His conviction that there
must be something there, on the spot, making all the events of embryonic
development happen is immensly impressive to me.
> And, maybe I'm past getting irritated with everything
> having to be a dichotomy in Aristotle. That's his
> shtick. And it's not a useless tool. After all, he was
> able use it to prove that the chicken came before the egg.
Is there a canonical passage where he does this? I see many
places where he touches on the idea, but I haven't found where
he actually addresses the paradigm per se.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
Richard Harter wrote:
> It is a deeply flawed book, hag-ridden by Horgan's own personal
> agenda. It is Horgan himself who is at the end of his affair with
> science. Like a disenchanted lover preparing to leave, he catalogs
> faults where he once enumerated delights. His intelligence and his
> skill with language enables him to rationalize beautifully.
I didn't get that. I agree he kind of packs the jury, but I felt
sympatico with his basic point of view, that things are not what
they once were, and this dosen't seem to be generally recognized.
I can't agree that he is merely projecting some personal malaise.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Don Tuite
wrote:
> . . . .
>It seems to me that much of the obvious progress these days
>is taking place in the domain of engineering pursuits, rather
>than in basic science. . . .
This science/engineering business seems to me a common but misleading
distinction. Were Penzias and Wilson engaged in cosmological research
when they encountered the background radiation from the big bang? A
certain amount of basic knowledge tends to fall out of "engineering"
research, no matter how hard company's lawyers and accountants try to
prevent it.
Don
Don Tuite
wrote:
>Lewis Mammel wrote:
>>
>> Richard Harter wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Q: Do we know how life works?
>> > A: No.
>>
>> Aristotle didn't know how life works either, but he asked the right
>> question:
>>
>> Now it would appear irrational to suppose that any of either the
>> internal organs or the other parts is made by something external,
>> since one thing cannot set up a motion in another without touching
>> it, nor can anything be affected in any way by anything that does
>> not set up a motion in it. Something then of the sort we require
>> exists in the embryo itself ...
>>
>> Then what is this something that we require? It's the secret of life!
>> Gee, maybe someday when we learn how life works, we'll know what it is.
>> Won't that be a grand and glorious day!
>
>"One thing can not set up motion in another without touching it"?
>Isn't that true by definition?
As Bill Clinton would have said, "It depends on what you mean by
'touch.'" I'm thinking of ac motors.
>
>And, maybe I'm past getting irritated with everything
>having to be a dichotomy in Aristotle. That's his
>shtick. And it's not a useless tool. After all, he was
>able use it to prove that the chicken came before the egg.
>
>Jeff
Wasn't the "Paleoooontological Paradox" (I'm missing the diaresis.) in
_Giles Goat-boy", if we want to cite a book other than Horgan?
Don
Jeff Inman
> Jeff Inman wrote:
> > Lewis Mammel wrote:
> > > Richard Harter wrote:
> > > > Q: Do we know how life works?
> > > > A: No.
> > >
> > > Aristotle didn't know how life works either, but he asked the right
> > > question:
> > >
> > > Now it would appear irrational to suppose that any of either the
> > > internal organs or the other parts is made by something external,
> > > since one thing cannot set up a motion in another without touching
> > > it, nor can anything be affected in any way by anything that does
> > > not set up a motion in it. Something then of the sort we require
> > > exists in the embryo itself ...
> > >
> > > Then what is this something that we require? It's the secret of life!
> > > Gee, maybe someday when we learn how life works, we'll know what it is.
> > > Won't that be a grand and glorious day!
> >
> > "One thing can not set up motion in another without touching it"?
> > Isn't that true by definition?
>
> Not at all. It's a principle of materialism. His conviction that there
> must be something there, on the spot, making all the events of embryonic
> development happen is immensly impressive to me.
Yeah, I get that. But I'm saying that it's still a
kind of materialism that understands Jupiter to be
touching Io. A more sophisticated kind. The
implication, ultimately, is that if a tree falls in
the forest, it is heard. This has bearing on the
idea of what the "life force" touching an embryo
might be like.
> > And, maybe I'm past getting irritated with everything
> > having to be a dichotomy in Aristotle. That's his
> > shtick. And it's not a useless tool. After all, he was
> > able use it to prove that the chicken came before the egg.
>
> Is there a canonical passage where he does this? I see many
> places where he touches on the idea, but I haven't found where
> he actually addresses the paradigm per se.
Well, there is a spot where I suddenly realized that it
was being proven to me that the chicken comes before the
egg. Of course, I can't remember where it was. Elvis
descends from a UFO, and there's no film in the camera.
ObSeasonalRadioRoutine: "I'm *Elve*-is!"
Jeff Inman
I think that that's where I took it, isn't it?
I made an allusion to Galileo's telescope. I
have understood that what upset the church was
not (only) the idea that Earth might not be at
the center (though there's plenty disturbing in
that), but that a regular guy, a non-theologian,
with a piece of technology, could turn up relevant
evidence.
Jeff
smw
Jeff Inman wrote:
And that women have fewer teeth than men.
smw
smw wrote:
>
>
> Jeff Inman wrote:
>
After all, he was
>> able use it to prove that the chicken came before the egg.
>
>
>
> And that women have fewer teeth than men.
Forgot ObBook: Keuls, _The Reign of the Phallus_. Just read it on the
plane. Wild. Anybody seen it?
Joan Marie Shields
>dear tom,
>Yes. It decays but very rarely ( or if you like, very slowly). This, along with
>neutrino mass is the death of the standard model of particle physics and the
>door opener for Grand Unification.
> We will soon find experimental evidence for supersymmetry ( not superstrings)
>and that will also have a big effect.
>>Have they ever decided if the proton decays or not?
>>I think all the big discoveries are next to come in biology.
>The big lesson seems to be that molecular and genetic biology is actually EASY.
>So easy that much of it can be cracked by computer driven experiments at high
>speed.
Yes and no. It does still happen (more often than we'd like at times) that
genomic DNA tricks us. Bioinformatics is a very fast growing science, but
it can only rely on the data that is generated by sequencing organisms. Hell, my own
research is partially based on someone's incorrect, though perfectly reasonable,
expectation and computer generated conclusion (phylogeneitic tree).
Stupid comment about science: the other day a fellow said, in a talk, that the
human genome project had failed (he's a social scientist). Afterwards I asked
him why he said that and he replied that since the idea had been that there were
about 100,000 genes but only about 30,000 were identified - that it had therefore
failed. I carefully explained to him that the 100,000 genes was a hypothesis and
that just because the hypothesis didn't ring true (so far) didn't mean that the
experiement had necessarily failed. The human genome was sequenced - it just
turned out to be different than was expected.
Purely out of curiousity - how many people in the thread are actually working
scientists and, of those, how many are not studying physics? Seriously, I am
only curious. While I have heard other scientists discussing a similar subject,
I rarely hear such passionate cynisism from them - only from non-scientists.
yiwf,
joan
--
Joan Shields jshi...@uci.edu
http://www.ags.uci.edu/~jshields
University of California - Irvine School of Social Ecology
Department of Environmental Analysis and Design
Joan Marie Shields
>> > . . . .
>> >It seems to me that much of the obvious progress these days
>> >is taking place in the domain of engineering pursuits, rather
>> >than in basic science. . . .
Don Tuite wrote:
>> This science/engineering business seems to me a common but misleading
>> distinction. Were Penzias and Wilson engaged in cosmological research
>> when they encountered the background radiation from the big bang? A
>> certain amount of basic knowledge tends to fall out of "engineering"
>> research, no matter how hard company's lawyers and accountants try to
>> prevent it.
Jeff:
>I think that that's where I took it, isn't it?
>I made an allusion to Galileo's telescope. I
>have understood that what upset the church was
>not (only) the idea that Earth might not be at
>the center (though there's plenty disturbing in
>that), but that a regular guy, a non-theologian,
>with a piece of technology, could turn up relevant
>evidence.
You might like Dava Sobel's "Galileo's Daughter" and her more recent book
containing all her letters. I think it was more than just your latter
comment. Galileo's work confirmed Calpernicus' earlier work - much of both
men's work was pretty freely passed about in non-Roman Catholic countries -
this was after the Reformation. Descartes was a big fan of G.
Regarding the RC attitude - I think it could have been more an issue of
shoring up after the schism. PR is the world's third oldest profession.
PSmith9626
Right. But, ideas on the order of General Relativity are not needed. This was a
big surprise to me, as I thought biology would be incredibly deep. Probably,
when we actually work out things like what the brain is doing, it will be.
>Yes and no. It does still happen (more often than we'd like at times) that
>genomic DNA tricks us.
>Purely out of curiousity - how many people in the thread are actually working
>scientists and, of those, how many
I am a working research mathematician, former member of the Max Planck
Institute for math,. and of the Institute for Advanced Study.
My areas of research are nonlinear partial differential equations,
differential geometry, geometric measure theory and
mathematical physics.
You and I are two. Who else?
best
penny
>Purely out of curiousity - how many people in the thread are actually working
>scientists and, of those, how many
>While I have heard other scientists discussing a similar subject,
>I rarely hear such passionate cynisism from them - only from non-scientists.
And, like you, I have not been cynical.
Math, in particular, is going through its golden age, right now!! Just like
biology!
Lewis Mammel
Joan Marie Shields wrote:
>
> Regarding the RC attitude -
Quiz:
Despite their innocuous character, these passages were
seized upon as one of the textual points offensive to
the church ?
1) What were these passages and in what work ?
2) Why were they offensive ?
The commision appointed by the Pope to examine the DIALOGUE
noted eight such points which may be stated briefly as follows:
3) Name as many of these points as you can.
Lewis Mammel
smw wrote:
>
> Forgot ObBook: Keuls, _The Reign of the Phallus_. Just read it on the
> plane. Wild. Anybody seen it?
Well, I SAW it. I felt like John Cleese as the schoolmaster:
"We'll take that as read." I.e. I'll concede the point, whatever
it is.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
Don Tuite wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 04:47:43 GMT, Jeff Inman <jeff...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> >"One thing can not set up motion in another without touching it"?
> >Isn't that true by definition?
>
> As Bill Clinton would have said, "It depends on what you mean by
> 'touch.'" I'm thinking of ac motors.
Electric-Magnetic influence acts through the agency of the
Electro-Magnetic field, and occurs locally in conformity with
Aristotle's conception. Even gravitational influence, conceded
to be "action-at-a-distance" in the Newtonian formulation, is
nominally attributed to the local influence of a gravitational
field. Locality is a powerful concept.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
smw
Lewis Mammel wrote:
Well, I don't think you should... it's rather stronger than you suspect,
I gather. And she does have the most idiosyncratic take. Plato comes
out as a radical feminist while Aristotle turns out to have been the
worst misogynist ever (seems to me you could argue the opposite with
equal ease and be just as wrong), but her material is amazing. It's
worth the buy for the vase pictures.
Marko Amnell
> Well, I don't think you should... it's rather stronger than you suspect,
> I gather. And she does have the most idiosyncratic take. Plato comes
> out as a radical feminist while Aristotle turns out to have been the
> worst misogynist ever (seems to me you could argue the opposite with
> equal ease and be just as wrong), but her material is amazing. It's
> worth the buy for the vase pictures.
For someone so smart, Aristotle sure could say some awfully
dumb things once in a while. I just ran across this tidbit
in an article about a new annotated edition of Edwin Abbott's
FLATLAND by Jim Holt in the Dec 19 issue of the NYRB:
"Aristotle, at the beginning of ON THE HEAVENS, declared that
'the three dimensions are all there are.' Why? Because, he argued
in a somewhat mystical vein, the number three comprises beginning,
middle, and end. Therefore, it is perfect and complete."
Brilliant reasoning. Gotta hand it to him.
Ob-Currently-Reading. FROZEN HELL: THE RUSSO-FINNISH
WAR OF 1939-40. No connection to Aristotle whatsoever;
just thought I'd mention it. Good descriptions of the
battle of Taipale.
Richard Harter
You can't agree? Sure you can. It's easy: Just say "I agree". :-)
It's been a while since I've read the book and I'm not going to open
it to check because I have in mind to do a long critical article on
the book at some point, and I don't want to do that just at the moment
because I have too much on my plate at the moment, and, my, doesn't
this sentence ramble on a bit.
That said, IIRC in the introductory material he remarks approximately
that his first love (other than Amelia Melkinthorpe [1] whom he wisely
does not mention) was literary theory before he prostituted himself as
a science editor. Tiring of the tawdry pleasures of scientism, he
desired to return to his roots and freshen his mind.
The essence of his message is a transplanting of Lyotard to science,
to wit: The era of grand narratives is over.
[1] cf _The Unknown Ajax_ by Georgette Heyer
Marko Amnell
> Ob-Currently-Reading. FROZEN HELL: THE RUSSO-FINNISH
> WAR OF 1939-40. No connection to Aristotle whatsoever;
> just thought I'd mention it. Good descriptions of the
> battle of Taipale.
Forgot to mention the author: William R. Trotter. An
American. Also very vivid description of the first
Soviet bombing run over Helsinki on November 30, 1939,
which started the Winter War. Killed forty people in
the square in front of the granite national romantic
railway station designed by Eliel Saarinen in 1913.
Don Tuite
But "field" is a kind of hand-wave.
Don
Lewis Mammel
So the electro-magnetic theory of light is a hand-wave?
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Don Tuite
<l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
So how does a field work? (I'll stipulate Es and Bs and all the rest
of the models we use every day.)
Don
Lewis Mammel
By emission and absorption of particles which represent its modes
of elementary excitation. A strong field is one with high occupancy
numbers in some of these modes.
There's a paradox in the demand to know how a field "works", because
this seems to demand an explanation in terms of a mechanical model,
i.e. one based on an analogue of "contact forces" between large
solid objects. This is because we are subjectively familiar with
them and we do not typically ask, e.g. "How does a spoon work?"
"What makes it rigid?" "How does it contain the soup?"
Yet, these contact forces are understood in fundamental terms as
complex interactions between conglomerations of matter - ultimately
exchange of virtual photons.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Don Tuite
<l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Even so, wouldn't you acknowledge that "virtual photons" is somewhat
tenuous. (I'll go a little ways out on a limb here and guess that the
photons might be considered virtual because their "exchange" is
instantaneous?)
I'm not insisting on a naive mechanical model, Im just suggesting that
our existing models, while they are growing progressively more refined
-- from lines of force to virtual photons, say -- still include some
vagueness that challenges Aristotle's notion about "touch."
Don
Lewis Mammel
Well, my grasp of their behavior certainly is!
> (I'll go a little ways out on a limb here and guess that the
> photons might be considered virtual because their "exchange" is
> instantaneous?)
In a relativistic theory there is no "instantaneous", but rather
space-like intervals between events, meaning either event may be
considered to precede the other. Virtual photons can be exchanged
across space-like intervals, but only on a scale allowed by uncertainty.
The coulomb force is mediated by exchange of virtual photons, but we
know that classically this force is not communicated faster than the
speed of light - i.e. a change in position cannot be detected before
a light signal indicating the change would arrive. These photons are
still virtual since they violate conservation laws for photons, and
thus are not free to propagate. Well, I'm hand-waving to beat the band,
but it is all in the formulas, and these formulas represent our
bedrock understanding of E-M interaction, and they are based on
quantized field concepts.
> I'm not insisting on a naive mechanical model, Im just suggesting that
> our existing models, while they are growing progressively more refined
> -- from lines of force to virtual photons, say -- still include some
> vagueness that challenges Aristotle's notion about "touch."
Well geez, I guess so. Life processes, though, as well as all conventional
chemical processes do not. I think it's remarkable that he considered
that there must be some local material process to explain them. The most
remarkable notion he presents is one that he rejects - the notion of
Empedocles that "there is a sort of tally in the male and female".
That's so mechanistic! Aristotle also later speaks of the notion of
"automatic puppets" in considering how "motion" ( a generalized concept
of change for A. ) is imparted to the embryo. These flashes of modernity
are breathtaking to me.
With regard to "touch" in QED, just consider the vertices of a Feynman
diagram. These are points in space-time at which interactions are
considered to take place. I think it's fair to say that Aristotle's
concept of "touch" is alive in this idea. The lines between the
vertices represent "propagators", which reinforces the idea that
one event cannot influence another except through a local agency
which propagates itself through space-time.
It's a view challenged, e.g., by Heinlein, in FARMER IN THE SKY where
telepathic communication takes place "instantaneously" across
distances measured in light-hours, affirming an absolute and connected
reality unbound by notions of physicality. It is a profound reversion,
and of course, quite a popular one. Such notions of sympathetic action
and many other mystical and quasi-mystical explanations had to be
swept away in order for Aristotle to think the way he did about a
process so utterly mysterious to him.
Also I wanted to add this wrt Newtonian gravitation: Here is the case
where one might best be justified in saying that the mediation of
a gravitational field is superfluous, yet it is a superfluity that
the moderns felt obliged to place into consideration, which in itself
shows that local agency is an imperative that persists in modern
scientific thought.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Don Tuite
<l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
. . .
I think we're close enough to declare a Christmas Truce and play
football between the trenches. I'm sorry about instantaneity. That
was sloppy, but I was thinking about the communication idea that
depends on the twinned particles with opposing spins.
Don
Jeff Inman
> Lewis Mammel wrote:
[Trusting that amateurs can join in, here.]
I was wondering about that, too. I guess you mean the
instantaneous "influence" apparently exerted between
entangled particles by the measurement of one of them.
I think that that suggests, at least to the degree that
I am inclined to equate influence to touch, to an ultimate
kind of "touch" which is pervasive. I suppose that that
is what leads to the Hidden Variable model, which I would
sure like to understand more deeply than I do. Tell us,
Lew, what kinds of thinking are going on about that?
Jeff
Lewis Mammel
Jeff Inman wrote:
>
> Don Tuite wrote:
> > I think we're close enough to declare a Christmas Truce and play
> > football between the trenches. I'm sorry about instantaneity. That
> > was sloppy, but I was thinking about the communication idea that
> > depends on the twinned particles with opposing spins.
>
> [Trusting that amateurs can join in, here.]
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
I was going to reply to Don, but I'll put it here:
The correlation of measurements in an "entangled" quantum state
is a result of what you call "kinematics". That is, it results from
the structure of the theory itself, and not from any postulated
particle dynamics. Consequently, any idea of "communication between
particles" is outside the theory, and in fact quite alien to it.
The theory gives the results in its own terms, and you can't look
to it for alternative heuristics.
> I was wondering about that, too. I guess you mean the
> instantaneous "influence" apparently exerted between
> entangled particles by the measurement of one of them.
See above. To continue in the same vein, expressions such
as you use here are framed as though QM were making predictions
about a complex classical situation - as though the particles
were objects. This is my pat answer to all of these conundrums -
the particles are not classical objects, and you are asking for
a quantum explanation of a scenario framed in terms of classical
objects.
Classical objects are world tubes formed from cascades of events.
QM gives an explanation of the connection between pairs of events
in terms that depart from classical presumptions, and it's just
a mistake to restore the properties of objects to the particles
that are treated of in the theory.
> I think that that suggests, at least to the degree that
> I am inclined to equate influence to touch, to an ultimate
> kind of "touch" which is pervasive.
But it's a mistake in the first place to speak of influence
in this case.
> I suppose that that
> is what leads to the Hidden Variable model, which I would
> sure like to understand more deeply than I do. Tell us,
> Lew, what kinds of thinking are going on about that?
There's my thinking, which sees Hidden Variables as the
sheerest tom-foolery. They're a hopeless attempt to restore
a classical metaphysics to Quantum Theory.
Furthermore, it grinds me that these little set pieces are posed
as the sticking points to Quantum Theory. This happens precisely
because they are set up so that we can make a direct comparison
to a classical scenario, and acutely feel the violation of our
classical prejudices.
Consider however the many traditional paradigms of quantum theory
that no longer shock or surprise simply because of familiarity.
For instance, the existence of metals. Metallic conduction bands
are degenerate electron gasses - no less outrageous to the philosophic
mind ( cough, cough ) than the degenerate electron gas whose pressure
supports a white dwarf from gravitational collapse. ( Another
kinematic effect. ) One must invoke indistinguishabilty among
not hundreds, not thousands, not millions or billions, but
thousands of billions of billions of electrons in one little scrap
of aluminum foil - all in macroscopically extended states!
How come you don't run crying for hidden variables when you hear
about conduction bands? I'll tell you why. Because you are familiar
with metals and you accept them subjectively as a primal substance,
so that explanations of their existence in terms of fundamental physics
are just so much water off your unphilosophic back.
... then you'll hear someone say "plate" or "shrimp" or
"plate of shrimp" - out of the blue - no explanation -
ain't no use in askin' for one neither.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
PSmith9626
Michael Faraday didn't have the calculus. So he formulated the field concept
as if the field was something real and physical.
James Clerk Maxwell wrote down the equations for this.
Once you have the equations, you can take the "Fields" as "vector valued
functions" DESCRIBING the behavior of measuring equipment ( test charges and
dipoles) point by point.
Physicists rarely make such a careful distinction between the formulae, the
"model" and the reality. They often act as if the field is real and not just a
mathematical metaphor. Mathematical Physicists ( a kind of mathematician) are
more careful.
best
penny
P.s. I always tell my students that the word "model" should be replaced by the
word "metaphor". That physics is full of metaphor and poetry. That physics is
myth in the best sense of the word. The same creative forces are at work.
P.s. If you haven't read Faraday ( anyone here) you should. He is
non-mathematical
( no fancy formulae) and a pellucid writer.
You can find his books in the old "Great Books of the Western World" Series at
most public libraries.
( In his own way, he was a mathematician of a very high order.)>Message-id:
<3E0260BC...@worldnet.att.net>
PSmith9626
Well said.
Let's also point out that this weird Quantum Electrodynamics, with its odd
divergent series, it's mind boggling clouds of virtual particles etc., provides
the highest numerical accuracy and experimential match in all of physics--up to
six decimal places for the zeeman effect in hydrogen.
best
penny
>Message-id: <3E02C260...@worldnet.att.net>
The second of two excellent posts.
PSmith9626
The EPR experiment doesn't involve instantanious transfer of information.
Information moves no faster than light there.
best
penny
>That
>was sloppy, but I was thinking about the communication idea that
>depends on the twinned particles with opposing spins.
Einstein-Panofsky-Rosen:
Very badly described in the popular press.
PSmith9626
Exactly!
best
penny
>the particles are not classical objects, and you are asking for
>a quantum explanation of a scenario framed in terms of classical
>objects.
Another excellent post from L.
Jeff Inman
> Jeff Inman wrote:
> > Don Tuite wrote:
> > > I think we're close enough to declare a Christmas Truce and play
> > > football between the trenches. I'm sorry about instantaneity. That
> > > was sloppy, but I was thinking about the communication idea that
> > > depends on the twinned particles with opposing spins.
> I was going to reply to Don, but I'll put it here:
>
> The correlation of measurements in an "entangled" quantum state
> is a result of what you call "kinematics". That is, it results from
> the structure of the theory itself, and not from any postulated
> particle dynamics. Consequently, any idea of "communication between
> particles" is outside the theory, and in fact quite alien to it.
> The theory gives the results in its own terms, and you can't look
> to it for alternative heuristics.
Why call it quantum "physics" or "mechanics", then, unless those
terms are understood metaphorically/abstractly, in the same way
that one might speak of the "physics" in the relationships
between characters in a novel? And, do you regard the objects of
quantum physics as anything more than reified statistics? I
thought I'd encountered resistence to that suggestion before
(i.e. that there was nothing more, there).
> > I was wondering about that, too. I guess you mean the
> > instantaneous "influence" apparently exerted between
> > entangled particles by the measurement of one of them.
>
> See above. To continue in the same vein, expressions such
> as you use here are framed as though QM were making predictions
> about a complex classical situation - as though the particles
> were objects. This is my pat answer to all of these conundrums -
> the particles are not classical objects, and you are asking for
> a quantum explanation of a scenario framed in terms of classical
> objects.
Okay, then wouldn't this make a nice counter-argument to Horgan?
If he is saying that there is little grand innovation available
in contemporary science, why don't you say:
Well, there is the issue that nobody knows what is going on with
matter. We have a mathematical model that allows treatment of
interacting classical particles, but there is no physical model
to ground it. Or, said differently, classical particles have
become mysterious, because they interact in ways for which
we have a mathematical model, but no physical model, which
calls into doubt the metaphysics underlying the whole structure.
I had thought some people did regard the mathematical model as a
"physical" model. Else, what would Einstein have had to complain
about to Bohr? He could just have said: "nice model, but I don't
like the physical implications. But we don't have an argument
until you start calling it a kind of 'physics', in the non-
metaphorical sense".
> Classical objects are world tubes formed from cascades of events.
> QM gives an explanation of the connection between pairs of events
> in terms that depart from classical presumptions, and it's just
> a mistake to restore the properties of objects to the particles
> that are treated of in the theory.
>
> > I think that that suggests, at least to the degree that
> > I am inclined to equate influence to touch, to an ultimate
> > kind of "touch" which is pervasive.
>
> But it's a mistake in the first place to speak of influence
> in this case.
And "touch"?
> > I suppose that that
> > is what leads to the Hidden Variable model, which I would
> > sure like to understand more deeply than I do. Tell us,
> > Lew, what kinds of thinking are going on about that?
>
> There's my thinking, which sees Hidden Variables as the
> sheerest tom-foolery. They're a hopeless attempt to restore
> a classical metaphysics to Quantum Theory.
>
> Furthermore, it grinds me that these little set pieces are posed
> as the sticking points to Quantum Theory. This happens precisely
> because they are set up so that we can make a direct comparison
> to a classical scenario, and acutely feel the violation of our
> classical prejudices.
They aren't posed as sticking points at all, but rather as an
attempt to move from mathematics to physics, which, as you seem
to be agreeing, hasn't been done yet.
> Consider however the many traditional paradigms of quantum theory
> that no longer shock or surprise simply because of familiarity.
> For instance, the existence of metals. Metallic conduction bands
> are degenerate electron gasses - no less outrageous to the philosophic
> mind ( cough, cough ) than the degenerate electron gas whose pressure
> supports a white dwarf from gravitational collapse. ( Another
> kinematic effect. ) One must invoke indistinguishabilty among
> not hundreds, not thousands, not millions or billions, but
> thousands of billions of billions of electrons in one little scrap
> of aluminum foil - all in macroscopically extended states!
> How come you don't run crying for hidden variables when you hear
> about conduction bands? I'll tell you why. Because you are familiar
> with metals and you accept them subjectively as a primal substance,
> so that explanations of their existence in terms of fundamental physics
> are just so much water off your unphilosophic back.
Wrong. I don't have an issue with "accepting" metal. I
sometimes apprehend a category of objects that are metals, and
have various ways of understanding them. And I regard the
fundamental physics (contra Horgan) as an unresolved struggle to
conceptualize some mathematical tools with very bizarre
implications. The theory of conduction bands seems to me to be
very malleable (so to speak), on this point. The new material
(forgotten its name) that is apparently all the rage among
superconductor researchers was the subject of much speculation
regarding its unusual conduction bands (if I understand rightly),
with much back-and-forth exploring explanations for observed
behavior.
And in metals I see the potential for weapons. Swords for
example, in the days when a sword was an ulitmate measure of
personal strength. A sword was not a chunk of refined steel that
came out of a factory, with quality control to assure that each
was the same. A sword was the product of a mysterious art, and
each one had its own character; it's "temper". The man gained
something from the sword he wielded, as much as vice versa.
So, I see in metals the classical properties attributed by
alchemists and philosophers, and I observe that a 3D
visualization of quantum states in a superconductor is not even
interrogated for ideas about the philosopher's stone. Or maybe
it is. I do actually give some credit to scientists (apparently
not Horgan, though) for being able to sustain such questions.
The ideas aren't made explicit in _Nature_, but it's there
implicitly, for those with eyes to see, and ears to hear. I
imagine that this thrill, perhaps only unconsciously, is the real
driver, or at least is a driver for those that I would be likely
to find most interesting. I don't require that it be their
only drive.
Also, in metals, I consider characteristic spirits, of purified
philosophical essenses, classically associated with specific
planets which bore those respective characteristics, with the Gold
being the Sun, the Silver being the Moon, Mercury:Mercury, Iron:Mars,
Copper:Venus, Tin:Jupiter, and Lead:Saturn.
The _I Ching_ associates metal with Heaven:
"The creative is heaven. It is round, it is the prince. the
father, jade, metal, cold, ice; it is deep red, a good horse, an
old horse, a lean horse, a wild horse[*], tree fruit"
[*] Another translation has "piebald horse" with the footnote:
"Kong Yingda, referring to such works as the _Erya_ (Elegant and
correct writings in familiar terms), a third/second century
B.C. lexicographic work, explains _boma_ (piebald horse) as 'a
horse that has teeth like a saw and that can eat tigers and
leopards -- this captures a sense of its perfect strength and
vigor'"
> ... then you'll hear someone say "plate" or "shrimp" or
> "plate of shrimp" - out of the blue - no explanation -
> ain't no use in askin' for one neither.
"Never underestimate the redemptive power in a plate
of tacos and a cold beer"
Jeff
Lewis Mammel
Lewis Mammel wrote:
>
> It's a view challenged, e.g., by Heinlein, in FARMER IN THE SKY where
> telepathic communication takes place "instantaneously" across
> distances measured in light-hours, affirming an absolute and connected
> reality unbound by notions of physicality.
I guess I'm thinking of TIME FOR THE STARS
http://www.gotterdammerung.org/books/robert-heinlein/time-for-the-stars.html
although I didn't even know I read that one!
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Don Tuite
wrote:
(To Lew)
>
>Okay, then wouldn't this make a nice counter-argument to Horgan?
>If he is saying that there is little grand innovation available
>in contemporary science, why don't you say:
>
> Well, there is the issue that nobody knows what is going on with
> matter. We have a mathematical model that allows treatment of
> interacting classical particles, but there is no physical model
> to ground it. Or, said differently, classical particles have
> become mysterious, because they interact in ways for which
> we have a mathematical model, but no physical model, which
> calls into doubt the metaphysics underlying the whole structure.
My original comments had thoughts something like this behind them.
I'll pass on the philosophical essences of different metals, though.
My hat's off to Lew for the Pratchett quote.
Don
Lewis Mammel
Jeff Inman wrote:
>
> Lewis Mammel wrote:
> > The correlation of measurements in an "entangled" quantum state
> > is a result of what you call "kinematics". That is, it results from
> > the structure of the theory itself, and not from any postulated
> > particle dynamics. Consequently, any idea of "communication between
> > particles" is outside the theory, and in fact quite alien to it.
> > The theory gives the results in its own terms, and you can't look
> > to it for alternative heuristics.
>
> Why call it quantum "physics" or "mechanics", then, unless those
> terms are understood metaphorically/abstractly, in the same way
> that one might speak of the "physics" in the relationships
> between characters in a novel? And, do you regard the objects of
> quantum physics as anything more than reified statistics? I
> thought I'd encountered resistence to that suggestion before
> (i.e. that there was nothing more, there).
This was in reference specifically to the conundrum of entanglement.
I said that this is a due to the kinematics of the theory, which it
is, and kinematics is still physics, I think, but that is the end of
the explanation - that is what the theory offers. Those such as
yourself come charging in with a demand for additional communications,
influences, and whatever, but the theory has nothing more to say.
>
> > > I was wondering about that, too. I guess you mean the
> > > instantaneous "influence" apparently exerted between
> > > entangled particles by the measurement of one of them.
> >
> > See above. To continue in the same vein, expressions such
> > as you use here are framed as though QM were making predictions
> > about a complex classical situation - as though the particles
> > were objects. This is my pat answer to all of these conundrums -
> > the particles are not classical objects, and you are asking for
> > a quantum explanation of a scenario framed in terms of classical
> > objects.
>
> Okay, then wouldn't this make a nice counter-argument to Horgan?
> If he is saying that there is little grand innovation available
> in contemporary science, why don't you say:
>
> Well, there is the issue that nobody knows what is going on with
> matter. We have a mathematical model that allows treatment of
> interacting classical particles, but there is no physical model
> to ground it.
We have a theory of interaction of classical OBJECTS, which consists in
the theory of the quantum interaction of their constituents. The theory
of these quantum interactions is what it is, and there is no deeper
explanation of it.
> Or, said differently, classical particles have
> become mysterious, because they interact in ways for which
> we have a mathematical model, but no physical model, which
> calls into doubt the metaphysics underlying the whole structure.
This is the question begging of which I spoke. You simply demand
that your intuitive metaphysics be accommodated, but it is not.
> I had thought some people did regard the mathematical model as a
> "physical" model. Else, what would Einstein have had to complain
> about to Bohr? He could just have said: "nice model, but I don't
> like the physical implications. But we don't have an argument
> until you start calling it a kind of 'physics', in the non-
> metaphorical sense".
>
> > Classical objects are world tubes formed from cascades of events.
> > QM gives an explanation of the connection between pairs of events
> > in terms that depart from classical presumptions, and it's just
> > a mistake to restore the properties of objects to the particles
> > that are treated of in the theory.
> >
> > > I think that that suggests, at least to the degree that
> > > I am inclined to equate influence to touch, to an ultimate
> > > kind of "touch" which is pervasive.
> >
> > But it's a mistake in the first place to speak of influence
> > in this case.
>
> And "touch"?
I was identifying the idea of "touch" with dynamical interactions
of the theory, as measured by coupling coeffecients.
> > > I suppose that that
> > > is what leads to the Hidden Variable model, which I would
> > > sure like to understand more deeply than I do. Tell us,
> > > Lew, what kinds of thinking are going on about that?
> >
> > There's my thinking, which sees Hidden Variables as the
> > sheerest tom-foolery. They're a hopeless attempt to restore
> > a classical metaphysics to Quantum Theory.
> >
> > Furthermore, it grinds me that these little set pieces are posed
> > as the sticking points to Quantum Theory. This happens precisely
> > because they are set up so that we can make a direct comparison
> > to a classical scenario, and acutely feel the violation of our
> > classical prejudices.
>
> They aren't posed as sticking points at all, but rather as an
> attempt to move from mathematics to physics, which, as you seem
> to be agreeing, hasn't been done yet.
You're saying Bohr, Heisenberg, et al. were not doing physics,
and the result of their labors is not physics. This is contrary to
established usage of the term.
> > How come you don't run crying for hidden variables when you hear
> > about conduction bands? I'll tell you why. Because you are familiar
> > with metals and you accept them subjectively as a primal substance,
> > so that explanations of their existence in terms of fundamental physics
> > are just so much water off your unphilosophic back.
>
> Wrong. I don't have an issue with "accepting" metal.
That's what I said. I said you accept them, then you say,
"Wrong, I accept them." ???????
> I sometimes apprehend a category of objects that are metals, and
> have various ways of understanding them.
I know! I know! I know! But physics is alas not among them.
> And I regard the
> fundamental physics (contra Horgan) as an unresolved struggle to
> conceptualize some mathematical tools with very bizarre
> implications.
Unresolved in the ultimate sense, perhaps, but QM has no
serious challenges to it at this time.
> The theory of conduction bands seems to me to be
> very malleable (so to speak), on this point. The new material
> (forgotten its name) that is apparently all the rage among
> superconductor researchers was the subject of much speculation
> regarding its unusual conduction bands (if I understand rightly),
> with much back-and-forth exploring explanations for observed
> behavior.
It's not a matter of speculation, but calculation - of finding the
answer that QM must needs provide. Of course it's possible that some
anomaly could emerge to call into question the basics of QM, but there's
no suggestion of such, nor is it expected.
I noticed you whizzed right past the aluminum foil. Not interested
in understanding aluminum foil? What about the metaphysical implications
of quotidian conduction bands? I'm trying to point out that you are
overlooking these.
For if some have no graces to charm the sense, yet nature,
which has fashioned them, gives amazing pleasure in their
study to all who can trace links of causation, and are
inclined to philosphy.
Parts of Animals, Book I,5
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Jeff Inman
> Jeff Inman wrote:
> > Lewis Mammel wrote:
> > > The correlation of measurements in an "entangled" quantum state
> > > is a result of what you call "kinematics". That is, it results from
> > > the structure of the theory itself, and not from any postulated
> > > particle dynamics. Consequently, any idea of "communication between
> > > particles" is outside the theory, and in fact quite alien to it.
> > > The theory gives the results in its own terms, and you can't look
> > > to it for alternative heuristics.
> >
> > Why call it quantum "physics" or "mechanics", then, unless those
> > terms are understood metaphorically/abstractly, in the same way
> > that one might speak of the "physics" in the relationships
> > between characters in a novel? And, do you regard the objects of
> > quantum physics as anything more than reified statistics? I
> > thought I'd encountered resistence to that suggestion before
> > (i.e. that there was nothing more, there).
>
> This was in reference specifically to the conundrum of entanglement.
> I said that this is a due to the kinematics of the theory, which it
> is, and kinematics is still physics, I think, but that is the end of
> the explanation - that is what the theory offers. Those such as
> yourself come charging in with a demand for additional communications,
> influences, and whatever, but the theory has nothing more to say.
You put "kinematics" in quotes, and indicate that it doesn't
actually have anything to do with particle dynamics. And you say
the theory has nothing to say about interactions between
particles. I'm not demanding anything. If that's the way the
theory works, then fine. But it sounds to me, so far, as though
QM functions as an actuarial tool, rather than as a physical
theory, unless you choose to reify the statistics and say that
that's what physicality "really is", at that level. I phrased it
as a question. My understanding is that that is exactly what
physicists have done.
Maybe it's too fine a point. After all, what are "force" and
"mass", really, but some mysterious properties which are reified
to explain acceleration of classical objects? But this doesn't
really satisfy the question, it only reinforces the point that
even classical physics is ungrounded.
> > > > I was wondering about that, too. I guess you mean the
> > > > instantaneous "influence" apparently exerted between
> > > > entangled particles by the measurement of one of them.
> > >
> > > See above. To continue in the same vein, expressions such
> > > as you use here are framed as though QM were making predictions
> > > about a complex classical situation - as though the particles
> > > were objects. This is my pat answer to all of these conundrums -
> > > the particles are not classical objects, and you are asking for
> > > a quantum explanation of a scenario framed in terms of classical
> > > objects.
> >
> > Okay, then wouldn't this make a nice counter-argument to Horgan?
> > If he is saying that there is little grand innovation available
> > in contemporary science, why don't you say:
> >
> > ["]Well, there is the issue that nobody knows what is going on with
> > matter. We have a mathematical model that allows treatment of
> > interacting classical particles, but there is no physical model
> > to ground it.["]
>
> We have a theory of interaction of classical OBJECTS, which consists in
> the theory of the quantum interaction of their constituents. The theory
> of these quantum interactions is what it is, and there is no deeper
> explanation of it.
Is it a theory, or is it a tool? (Is there any difference?)
> > Or, said differently, classical particles have
> > become mysterious, because they interact in ways for which
> > we have a mathematical model, but no physical model, which
> > calls into doubt the metaphysics underlying the whole structure.
>
> This is the question begging of which I spoke. You simply demand
> that your intuitive metaphysics be accommodated, but it is not.
Maybe someday I'll understand what you mean.
> > I had thought some people did regard the mathematical model as a
> > "physical" model. Else, what would Einstein have had to complain
> > about to Bohr? He could just have said: "nice model, but I don't
> > like the physical implications. But we don't have an argument
> > until you start calling it a kind of 'physics', in the non-
> > metaphorical sense".
> >
> > > Classical objects are world tubes formed from cascades of events.
> > > QM gives an explanation of the connection between pairs of events
> > > in terms that depart from classical presumptions, and it's just
> > > a mistake to restore the properties of objects to the particles
> > > that are treated of in the theory.
> > >
> > > > I think that that suggests, at least to the degree that
> > > > I am inclined to equate influence to touch, to an ultimate
> > > > kind of "touch" which is pervasive.
> > >
> > > But it's a mistake in the first place to speak of influence
> > > in this case.
> >
> > And "touch"?
>
> I was identifying the idea of "touch" with dynamical interactions
> of the theory, as measured by coupling coeffecients.
Is there any place for A's notions of "mover" and "moved"? I
presume not. But if there is absolutely no room for the notion
of "influence" here, then this is irrelevant to the original
issue, which was to question whether Aristotle's idea that there
can be no influence without touch is not true by definition.
> > > > I suppose that that
> > > > is what leads to the Hidden Variable model, which I would
> > > > sure like to understand more deeply than I do. Tell us,
> > > > Lew, what kinds of thinking are going on about that?
> > >
> > > There's my thinking, which sees Hidden Variables as the
> > > sheerest tom-foolery. They're a hopeless attempt to restore
> > > a classical metaphysics to Quantum Theory.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, it grinds me that these little set pieces are posed
> > > as the sticking points to Quantum Theory. This happens precisely
> > > because they are set up so that we can make a direct comparison
> > > to a classical scenario, and acutely feel the violation of our
> > > classical prejudices.
> >
> > They aren't posed as sticking points at all, but rather as an
> > attempt to move from mathematics to physics, which, as you seem
> > to be agreeing, hasn't been done yet.
>
> You're saying Bohr, Heisenberg, et al. were not doing physics,
> and the result of their labors is not physics. This is contrary to
> established usage of the term.
Fine. Has the usage that has been established in refined circles
hidden the situation there by subverting the common usage? My
question is not about whether classical physics has been
"subverted", but about whether calling QM "physics" is misleading
in suggesting that there is actually a theory where there isn't
one. It boils down to a question of whether the tool is regarded
as a model of actual phenomena -- is the mathematical process a
"simulation" -- or is it a white box whose working is not
necessarily relevant to the phenomena which it is anticipating in
outputs?
> > > How come you don't run crying for hidden variables when you hear
> > > about conduction bands? I'll tell you why. Because you are familiar
> > > with metals and you accept them subjectively as a primal substance,
> > > so that explanations of their existence in terms of fundamental physics
> > > are just so much water off your unphilosophic back.
> >
> > Wrong. I don't have an issue with "accepting" metal.
>
> That's what I said. I said you accept them, then you say,
> "Wrong, I accept them." ???????
Okay. You were implying that my experience of metals as a primal
substance was somehow at odds with a physics that would have
implications that I should be troubled about, were I interested
enough to investigate. But what is this "fundamental physics" to
which you refer? You seem to me to have argued that there is no
"fundamental physics" in QM; there is math which remains blithely
above anyone's need for fundamental physics. Just a tool.
My "subjective" experience of metals has no need for Hidden
Variables, because the hidden variables are already in there, in
my metaphysics, as you point out. I am the first to agree that
one's metaphysics are not grounded in necessity. That's why I
sense, in Sokal's challenge to "postmodernists", to jump out of
his window, a funadmental philosophical ignorance and naivete.
So, yes, I acknowledge that my subjective model is not
troubled with problems about explaining conduction bands,
just as yours has no issue with your material being devoid
of continuity with unreduced subjective phenomena. However,
I didn't call you a blinking, myopic little Last Man.
> > I sometimes apprehend a category of objects that are metals, and
> > have various ways of understanding them.
>
> I know! I know! I know! But physics is alas not among them.
Yet to be established: is there any physics in quantum physics?
> > And I regard the
> > fundamental physics (contra Horgan) as an unresolved struggle to
> > conceptualize some mathematical tools with very bizarre
> > implications.
>
> Unresolved in the ultimate sense, perhaps, but QM has no
> serious challenges to it at this time.
I have not proposed any challenge to QM in this conversation.
Nor have I suggested that it is inadequate to do its job, or that
one might expect weaknesses or gaps in its functioning.
What I did was suggest that Aristotle's statement that influence
requires touch is true by definition. Somehow we got to QM.
This turns out to be completely irrelevant, because, according to
you, there is no "influence" in QM. Cool. Interesting. I don't
claim to understand what you're talking about, but cool. Things
you have said along the way have me wondering (again) whether
there is any "physics" or "mechanics" in QM, as well, but the
answer to this is apparently that it depends what you mean by
physics. If you mean a bunch of actuarial math with no necessary
connection to classical material, then, yes, it does have
physics. Have I gotten it right?
> > The theory of conduction bands seems to me to be
> > very malleable (so to speak), on this point. The new material
> > (forgotten its name) that is apparently all the rage among
> > superconductor researchers was the subject of much speculation
> > regarding its unusual conduction bands (if I understand rightly),
> > with much back-and-forth exploring explanations for observed
> > behavior.
>
> It's not a matter of speculation, but calculation - of finding the
> answer that QM must needs provide. Of course it's possible that some
> anomaly could emerge to call into question the basics of QM, but there's
> no suggestion of such, nor is it expected.
I didn't mean that QM was in question, but just that as a tool it
is unwieldy to apply. It's not a criticism of the "theory". But
perhaps there will come higher level tools. Maybe, eventually,
a physics. I, personally, expect something magnificent out of
such a revolution. The Hidden Variable business, for example,
might be resolved there.
> I noticed you whizzed right past the aluminum foil. Not interested
> in understanding aluminum foil? What about the metaphysical implications
> of quotidian conduction bands? I'm trying to point out that you are
> overlooking these.
>
> For if some have no graces to charm the sense, yet nature,
> which has fashioned them, gives amazing pleasure in their
> study to all who can trace links of causation, and are
> inclined to philosphy.
>
> Parts of Animals, Book I,5
Inappropriate quote. You have no "causation" in QM.
"What were we doing when we unchained the earth from
its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we
moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging
continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all
directions? Is there still any up or down?"
_The Gay Science_, #125
Jeff
Marko Amnell
> You put "kinematics" in quotes, and indicate that it doesn't
> actually have anything to do with particle dynamics. And you say
> the theory has nothing to say about interactions between
> particles. I'm not demanding anything. If that's the way the
> theory works, then fine. But it sounds to me, so far, as though
> QM functions as an actuarial tool, rather than as a physical
> theory, unless you choose to reify the statistics and say that
> that's what physicality "really is", at that level. I phrased it
> as a question. My understanding is that that is exactly what
> physicists have done.
>
> Maybe it's too fine a point. After all, what are "force" and
> "mass", really, but some mysterious properties which are reified
> to explain acceleration of classical objects? But this doesn't
> really satisfy the question, it only reinforces the point that
> even classical physics is ungrounded.
I don't want to wade into the endless bog of the debate about
the interpretation of quantum mechanics (although I can say that
I accept the standard so-called Copenhagen interpretation, even
though I find it as difficult to understand intuitively as anyone
else) but I did run across this fascinating little historical
fact today in MATHEMATICS FOR THE IMAGINATION by Peter Higgins:
"The greatest mathematician of the 14th century, Nicole Oresme
of Paris, deserves mention here as he deduced by graphical
techniques not widely used until the 17th century, that the
distance travelled by a uniformly accelerating body is
proportional to square of the time. As with many other of
his ideas, such as the use of fractional indices to represent
roots of numbers, he was well in advance of his own era."
So some facts about the acceleration of classical objects
were known three hundred years before Newton. By analogy, who
knows what the physics of atomic phenomena will look like three
hundred years from now?
Lewis Mammel
Jeff Inman wrote:
>
> Lewis Mammel wrote:
> > Jeff Inman wrote:
> > > Lewis Mammel wrote:
> You put "kinematics" in quotes, and indicate that it doesn't
> actually have anything to do with particle dynamics. And you say
> the theory has nothing to say about interactions between
> particles.
I'm not sure if I need the quotes or not. I always understood kinematics
in the classical sense of those aspects of motion which could be
studied without regard to a particular force law. But recently I was
looking at Heisenberg's original paper in which matrix mechanics is
implicitly suggested, and he uses kinematics in the more general sense
of the form of the laws of motion. For example he notes that the
"quantum jump" rule for spectral transitions, "already represents
a complete departure from classical mechanics, or rather from the
kinematics underlying this mechanics, ..." and later remarks that
( what amounts to ) his matrix method "has nothing to do with
electrodynamics but rather - and this seems to be particularly
important - is of a purely kinematic nature."
His first example of quantum jumps is a good illustration. What holds
or constrains the electrons to certain orbits? one might ask. But there
is nothing - no force or constraint - that does this. It is in the structure
of the theory - a metaconstraint. So what I'm trying to point out is
that the "communications" and "influences" that seem to be implied
in quantum entanglement are of the same nature as the "forces" or
"constraints" that hold the electrons in certain orbits, they are
kinematic and not explained by anything acting on the particles.
> I'm not demanding anything. If that's the way the
> theory works, then fine. But ...
Everything before 'but' is bullshit. - heard that recently.
> > We have a theory of interaction of classical OBJECTS, which consists in
> > the theory of the quantum interaction of their constituents. The theory
> > of these quantum interactions is what it is, and there is no deeper
> > explanation of it.
>
> Is it a theory, or is it a tool? (Is there any difference?)
It certainly does represent a philosophical departure from classical
physics, wherein one considers that one is dealing with a model that
is spatio-temporally isomorphic with the real system one is treating.
QM doesn't offer any such thing, and it seems to me that this is what
you want or "demand" that a theory must supply, in order to qualify
as "physics".
> > I was identifying the idea of "touch" with dynamical interactions
> > of the theory, as measured by coupling coeffecients.
>
> Is there any place for A's notions of "mover" and "moved"? I
> presume not.
The mover and moved evaporate at the quantum level just as
classical objects evaporate, yet the appearances of them
makes just as much sense now as they did for Aristotle.
These notions reside more in Thermodynamics than in Mechanics.
> But if there is absolutely no room for the notion
> of "influence" here, then this is irrelevant to the original
> issue, which was to question whether Aristotle's idea that there
> can be no influence without touch is not true by definition.
I didn't think so because that notion guided his thinking in
a direction that had him knocking on the door of genetic theory.
> > You're saying Bohr, Heisenberg, et al. were not doing physics,
> > and the result of their labors is not physics. This is contrary to
> > established usage of the term.
>
> Fine. Has the usage that has been established in refined circles
> hidden the situation there by subverting the common usage?
I don't think refined circles had anything to do with it,
any more than refined circles decided Babe Ruth was a baseball
player and tricked everybody else into believing it.
> My
> question is not about whether classical physics has been
> "subverted", but about whether calling QM "physics" is misleading
> in suggesting that there is actually a theory where there isn't
> one.
Your suggestion that Quantum Theory is not a theory and not
physics is completely new to me, and is comprehensible to me
only as a rhetorical device to suggest that physics has wandered
into the wilderness, if there ever was physics, that is! You say
you are not demanding anything, yet you insist quantum mechanics
is not physics.
> It boils down to a question of whether the tool is regarded
> as a model of actual phenomena -- is the mathematical process a
> "simulation" -- or is it a white box whose working is not
> necessarily relevant to the phenomena which it is anticipating in
> outputs?
QM is not a simulation of reality, but it's going too far to say it
is MERELY a set of rules for calculating. An electron has no size,
yet it has spin. What is it? It is "sort of a nothing which is something."
Yet almost all of our experience of material objects is governed by
its interaction with the atomic nuclei ( and the rules of quantum
kinematics )
If we look at the Schroedinger model of an atom, we have an idea that
we are describing events in an actual space and time, then we when
consider the rules of QED, with its electron and photon propgator,
we get a more detailed picture of events that are in some sense
happening, although we can't exactly say which events do and
which events don't happen. So I would say we do get a model of
actual phenomena, although now we must say "actual phenomena", so
QM pretty much explodes all of ones presumptions.
BTW, cf.
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/heisenberg.htm
which touches on many of these points.
> > > > How come you don't run crying for hidden variables when you hear
> > > > about conduction bands? I'll tell you why. Because you are familiar
> > > > with metals and you accept them subjectively as a primal substance,
> > > > so that explanations of their existence in terms of fundamental physics
> > > > are just so much water off your unphilosophic back.
> > >
> > > Wrong. I don't have an issue with "accepting" metal.
> >
> > That's what I said. I said you accept them, then you say,
> > "Wrong, I accept them." ???????
>
> Okay. You were implying that my experience of metals as a primal
> substance was somehow at odds with a physics that would have
> implications that I should be troubled about, were I interested
> enough to investigate.
Yes. The characteristic properties of a metal are explained, in
exquisite, excruciating detail by the presence of a degenerate
gas of fermions. There it is, whatever it is, right in front of
you. It's real.
> But what is this "fundamental physics" to
> which you refer? You seem to me to have argued that there is no
> "fundamental physics" in QM; there is math which remains blithely
> above anyone's need for fundamental physics. Just a tool.
I SEEM to have argued that, because you don't like the answers
that QM gives to your questions, many of which are "Don't ask."
I lectured you once before on the beauty and necessity of
Quantum Uncertainty, but you didn't like that either.
> My "subjective" experience of metals has no need for Hidden
> Variables, because the hidden variables are already in there, in
> my metaphysics, as you point out. I am the first to agree that
> one's metaphysics are not grounded in necessity. That's why I
> sense, in Sokal's challenge to "postmodernists", to jump out of
> his window, a fundamental philosophical ignorance and naivete.
I agree entirely on this point. But why not stick with alchemy
then? Are we interested in the alchemist's pronouncements on
Quantum Mechanics? But you want to encompass all. You want the
metaphysics that judges all metaphysics. You are modern.
> So, yes, I acknowledge that my subjective model is not
> troubled with problems about explaining conduction bands,
> just as yours has no issue with your material being devoid
> of continuity with unreduced subjective phenomena.
Your subjective model is not troubled by much.
> However,
> I didn't call you a blinking, myopic little Last Man.
"We're sorry if you got that impression" ... but all such
epithets may be taken rhetorically in this context.
> > > I sometimes apprehend a category of objects that are metals, and
> > > have various ways of understanding them.
> >
> > I know! I know! I know! But physics is alas not among them.
>
> Yet to be established: is there any physics in quantum physics?
It's like once when I was a kid and we would pick up snapshots
from the drugstore on the way back from Sunday School, and I
asked my Dad "How do they know what to put on the pictures?" - so he
went through the whole thing, the lens, the light sensitive film,
the developing, the printing, and when he was finished I said,
"Yeah, but how do they know what picture to put on there?"
I didn't get it!
> > > And I regard the
> > > fundamental physics (contra Horgan) as an unresolved struggle to
> > > conceptualize some mathematical tools with very bizarre
> > > implications.
> >
> > Unresolved in the ultimate sense, perhaps, but QM has no
> > serious challenges to it at this time.
>
> I have not proposed any challenge to QM in this conversation.
You just said it's not physics. You dismiss it.
> Nor have I suggested that it is inadequate to do its job, or that
> one might expect weaknesses or gaps in its functioning.
>
> What I did was suggest that Aristotle's statement that influence
> requires touch is true by definition. Somehow we got to QM.
> This turns out to be completely irrelevant, because, according to
> you, there is no "influence" in QM.
That's not what I said. I said that entanglement effects were not
due to any kind of influence considered in the theory. The theory
does treat of influences in the form of e.g. E-M interactions,
and these do account for the causative influences such as Aristotle
surmised must be acting.
> Cool. Interesting. I don't
> claim to understand what you're talking about, but cool.
Well, hell!
> Things
> you have said along the way have me wondering (again) whether
> there is any "physics" or "mechanics" in QM, as well, but the
> answer to this is apparently that it depends what you mean by
> physics. If you mean a bunch of actuarial math with no necessary
> connection to classical material, then, yes, it does have
> physics. Have I gotten it right?
Not any more than I understood my Dad's explanation of photography.
> I didn't mean that QM was in question, but just that as a tool it
> is unwieldy to apply. It's not a criticism of the "theory". But
> perhaps there will come higher level tools. Maybe, eventually,
> a physics. I, personally, expect something magnificent out of
> such a revolution. The Hidden Variable business, for example,
> might be resolved there.
Well, it hasn't happened, it isn't happening, and it ain't gonna happen.
> > I noticed you whizzed right past the aluminum foil. Not interested
> > in understanding aluminum foil? What about the metaphysical implications
> > of quotidian conduction bands? I'm trying to point out that you are
> > overlooking these.
> >
> > For if some have no graces to charm the sense, yet nature,
> > which has fashioned them, gives amazing pleasure in their
> > study to all who can trace links of causation, and are
> > inclined to philosphy.
> >
> > Parts of Animals, Book I,5
>
> Inappropriate quote. You have no "causation" in QM.
Insofar as there is such a thing as causation, it is in QM,
or at least accommodated.
The causes of embryonic development are to be found in the
genes and associated apparatus made possible by the structure
of DNA - all functioning according to the Laws of Quantum Mechanics.
>
> "What were we doing when we unchained the earth from
> its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we
> moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging
> continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all
> directions? Is there still any up or down?"
>
> _The Gay Science_, #125
Well, then, how about #246 ?
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
Marko Amnell wrote:
> So some facts about the acceleration of classical objects
> were known three hundred years before Newton. By analogy, who
> knows what the physics of atomic phenomena will look like three
> hundred years from now?
Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, pg. 342:
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS IN FERMI SURFACE STUDIES
Powerful experimental methods have been developed for studies
of the Fermi surfaces of metals. These methods include
a. Anomalous skin effect
b. Cyclotron resonance
c. Magnetoresistance
d. De Hass-van Alphen effect
e. Ultrasonic propagation in magnetic fields
f. Optical reflectivity
...
I think there's some question whether anybody will be around
in 300 years who has the slightest idea of any of this.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Marko Amnell
> Marko Amnell wrote:
>
> > So some facts about the acceleration of classical objects
> > were known three hundred years before Newton. By analogy, who
> > knows what the physics of atomic phenomena will look like three
> > hundred years from now?
>
> Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, pg. 342:
>
> EXPERIMENTAL METHODS IN FERMI SURFACE STUDIES
>
> Powerful experimental methods have been developed for studies
> of the Fermi surfaces of metals. These methods include
>
> a. Anomalous skin effect
> b. Cyclotron resonance
> c. Magnetoresistance
> d. De Hass-van Alphen effect
> e. Ultrasonic propagation in magnetic fields
> f. Optical reflectivity
>
> ...
>
> I think there's some question whether anybody will be around
> in 300 years who has the slightest idea of any of this.
But does that mean you're ruling out the possibility of
a deeper physical theory that would explain some of the
puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics? (and possibly
also provide a really convincing unification with
general relativity) I know a little about both QM and
GR and what struck me is that the basic concepts used
in the two theories are completely different. I'm not
thinking of superstring theories here, by the way, which
never seemed very convincing to me (even when I first
heard about them back in the late '80s) but a new unknown
theory that would provide entirely new concepts that
would somehow encompass the basic concepts of both QM
and GR. Based on what I know about the attempts so far
to unite QM and GR, they don't introduce such fundamentally
new concepts, but rather just try to translate GR into
the language and concepts of QM. But this seems misguided
to me because GR is a really perfect and complete theory
on its own. There's a very succinct and lucid description
of it in Frank Morgan's elementary book RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY:
A BEGINNER'S GUIDE, by the way, where he boils it down to
(1) special relativity, (2) the principle of equivalence,
and (3) Riemannian geometry. So simple and perfect. This
is so different from QM, which seems ad hoc and philosophically
puzzling to everyone. So, it seems to me that if there were
to be further progress in fundamental physics, it wouldn't
come from trying squeeze Einstein's perfect and complete
theory into the messy framework of QM, but in inventing
*new* concepts that would encompass all the old ideas, and
somehow maybe also explain them. That might be what Jeff Inman
is talking about. So progress in physics wouldn't come from
further mathematical refinements, like trying to get rid
of some of the problems in QED (such as "renormalization"
which I gather is a way of trying to fix the problem of
divergent series) but from what I would call philosophical
thinking about the basic concepts of physics. I have no idea
what these new concepts might be, but it seems possible to
me that such new fundamental concepts could be invented
somehow (or might even emerge naturally from more experimental
work at higher and higher energies achieved in particle
accelerators). I know all this sounds very vague, and I have
no way to make it more concrete (because I have no idea what
the new concepts might be like), but when you say there may
be no one around three hundred years from now who undertands
today's physics, it sounds too pessimistic to me because of
this unresolved conceptual conflict between GR and QM. This
is a strain at a fundamental level that just might be resolved
by the invention of new basic concepts in the future. That
is one reason I think Horgan is too pessimistic when he says
there will be no further progress in physics.
Lewis Mammel
I just think it's a fading prospect.
>.............. I know all this sounds very vague, and I have
> no way to make it more concrete (because I have no idea what
> the new concepts might be like), but when you say there may
> be no one around three hundred years from now who undertands
> today's physics, it sounds too pessimistic to me because of
> this unresolved conceptual conflict between GR and QM.
That's neither here nor there. Nobody can even detect a gravitational
wave on 1 meter scale - or barely at best. What would be the
basis for quantizing such a phenomenon? In contrast with the wealth
of information concerning atomic spectra, which engendered the creation
of QM, there's nothing to feed such a development.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
Marko Amnell wrote:
>
> So some facts about the acceleration of classical objects
> were known three hundred years before Newton. By analogy, who
> knows what the physics of atomic phenomena will look like three
> hundred years from now?
This is a strange analogy, actually. You're saying there was
lore around for several centuries that amounted to knowledge
of how to integrate x dx before Galileo placed this within
a system or a program, and then Newton brought it into a
recognizably modern form. For what reason is this supposed
to suggest to us that atomic physics as it is understood today
will be somehow transformed in the coming centuries ?
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Marko Amnell
> > So some facts about the acceleration of classical objects
> > were known three hundred years before Newton. By analogy, who
> > knows what the physics of atomic phenomena will look like three
> > hundred years from now?
>
> lore around for several centuries that amounted to knowledge
> of how to integrate x dx before Galileo placed this within
> a system or a program, and then Newton brought it into a
> recognizably modern form. For what reason is this supposed
> to suggest to us that atomic physics as it is understood today
> will be somehow transformed in the coming centuries ?
It's not meant to suggest that exactly, except as a possibility.
My idea was simply that just as some people during the 14th century
knew little bits knowledge that later became a part of the body
of Newtonian physics, similarly *if* the Theory of Everything
(which would unify the description of all four forces of Nature
into one theory) were known three hundred years from now,
presumably quantum mechanics would form a small part of it. So
QM would then look to the people of the future a bit like
Nicole Oresme's crude integration of x dx. Oresme's graphical
calculation may have seemed as puzzling to him in his day as
QM does to many people today. It was a calculation that worked,
but did not find a satisfactory theoretical explanation.
Marko Amnell
> > I know all this sounds very vague, and I have no way
> > to make it more concrete (because I have no idea what
> > the new concepts might be like), but when you say there
> > may be no one around three hundred years from now who
> > undertands today's physics, it sounds too pessimistic to
> > me because of this unresolved conceptual conflict between
> > GR and QM.
>
> That's neither here nor there. Nobody can even detect a
> gravitational wave on 1 meter scale - or barely at best.
> What would be the basis for quantizing such a phenomenon?
> In contrast with the wealth of information concerning
> atomic spectra, which engendered the creation of QM,
> there's nothing to feed such a development.
Well, what motivates people like Edward Witten who
search for the so-called Theory of Everything?
(the name seems too grandiose, but there it is)
Presumably, they want to have one unified theory
that would encompass both quantum phenomena and
gravity. There may not be a growing body of unexplained
evidence pressing us towards such a theory, but the
idea of a TOE is appealing nonetheless, on aesthetic
grounds of simplicity if nothing else.
ObBook. DREAMS OF A FINAL THEORY by Steven Weinberg.
Noel Smith
>Richard Harter wrote:
>> "R.A. Leonard" <rale...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > Lewis Mammel wrote:
>
>> > > Read THE END OF SCIENCE people! This is it! Horgan called it all the way!
[...]
>Furthermore, there is no way to secure the metaphysics that
>underlies the objects of science. The notion that the
>periodic table is somehow "solid" forever, betrays an
>utter philosophical naivete. [...]
So does the notion that the principles of organic chemistry are
stable. It doesn't matter. If, for example, oxygen ceases to combine
with hydrocarbons, the metaphysician and the antimetaphysician alike
will cool.
When the metaphysician, say Jeff Inman, wakes in the morning, he
washes, dresses, eats. He treats his body, his clothes and his food as
real, just as the philosophically naive scientist does. Since there is
no fundamental metaphysical difference between the objects of everyday
life and the objects of science, treating the latter as real does not
necessarily involve a different metaphysical assumption from treating
the former as real.
The real question is whether the metaphysician's or the philosopher's
art can devise an insight that would free anyone--Jeff, for
example--from the necessity of bathing, or diminish our terror that a
change in the principles of organic chemistry might befall us.
>Jeff
Jeff Inman
Your terror. If you don't understand, it might be
better to just ask.
David J. Loftus
> > The real question is whether the metaphysician's or the philosopher's
> > art can devise an insight that would free anyone--Jeff, for
> > example--from the necessity of bathing, or diminish our terror that a
> > change in the principles of organic chemistry might befall us.
It was Delmore Schwartz, I believe, who said existentialism means
nobody else can take a bath for you.
David Loftus