"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Jenny on 10 Mar 2010 09:31 On Mar 7, 7:28 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: Wayne Throop: > > : Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> > > : De Broglie: Electrons behave like waves. > >> > explain actual observations about lightspeed. And De Broglie > > observations about electrons. > As you say, these aren't good examples. de Broglie is arguably the best > example, but 1. he was basing his work off of Planck and Einstein, so he > wasn't starting over from scratch, and 2. actually understood the > contemporary paradigm, unlike our friend here. Sorensen had written: "However, sometimes innovations have to come from radically different approaches because current paradigmatic thinking has painted itself into a corner." WT asked for examples. If treating matter as a wave was not a "radically different approach" than what had gone before, then I don't know what is. The then current paradigm that matter consisted of particles could no longer handle the experimental observations - it had painted itself into a corner. > Did you ever love somebody / Did you ever really care Yes and no. Love, Jenny
From: Michael Stemper on 10 Mar 2010 13:40 In article <7vd97gFeblU2(a)mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss <gossg(a)gossg.org> writes: >Remus Shepherd <remus(a)panix.com> wrote: >> It isn't deterministic when part of the rules say to roll dice and consult >>a table in a DM's guide somewhere. You can't predict what's going to happen >>in that case. If there is randomness or free will (which, in physics terms, >>may as well be randomness) then determinism doesn't exist. > >I think some of Pournelle's work has generals tossing dice to choose >between major strategic plans. If there's one best answer, then the >opponent is ready for it. If you're acting at random, you're harder >to predict. One of the Tom Baker _Doctor Who_ episodes, "Destiny of the Daleks", had them involved in just such a stand-off. I believe (but it's been years since I read it), that Gordon R. Dickson's _Hour of the Horde_ had some aliens grab some random guy off of the West Bank to help them resolve a similar standoff. -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.
From: Michael Stemper on 10 Mar 2010 13:45 In article <51edfb52-7142-4b9b-aa58-4e6e304159f0(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Jenny <yuancur(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Mar 7, 6:14=A0pm, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: >> : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> > >> : Yes, precision is called for. However, sometimes innovations have to >> : come from radically different approaches, because current paradigmatic >> : thinking has painted itself into a corner. > >> Name three cases where this has been true, historically. > >Galileo: An object keeps moving at a constant speed in a straight line >unless acted upon by a force. > >Einstein: The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames, > >De Broglie: Electrons behave like waves. No, these were all cases where new experimental evidence showed that the existing theories had flaws. Nothing to do with "current paradigmatic thinking" painting itself into a corner. In each of these, the person named understood quite well the existing theories and was able to see (and show to others) how the results of the experiments showed inadequacies in those theories. -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.
From: Michael Stemper on 10 Mar 2010 13:48 In article <1ba0a09c-0804-4222-8d87-5a074898dde5(a)e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Jenny <yuancur(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Mar 7, 7:06=A0pm, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: >> :: Name three cases where this has been true, historically. > >> : Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> >> : Galileo: An object keeps moving at a constant speed in a straight line >> : unless acted upon by a force. >> : >> : Einstein: The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames, > >> : De Broglie: Electrons behave like waves. > >> The notable thing about your examples is that they are all responses >> to *new* *facts*. =A0In none of them was the theory changed just because >> of philosophical prejudices alone, as Tue proposes. > >Well, what he wrote was: "However, sometimes innovations have to come >from radically different approaches, because current paradigmatic >thinking has painted itself into a corner". > >I took that he meant that curent theory can't deal with the facts. No, he didn't mean that. He has not shown any facts with which current theory cannot deal. He has, however, stated that he doesn't like the current theory for philosophical reasons. >> And Galileo didn't come up with (to pick a better example) the notion >> that all objects fall at the same rate just because it's simpler. >> He came up with it due to *observations*. =A0Einstein was trying to >> explain actual observations about lightspeed. =A0And De Broglie >> observations about electrons. > >Yes, observations that previous theories had been unable to handle. Which are not what T.S. is discussing. -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.
From: Michael Stemper on 10 Mar 2010 13:53
In article <33abee0b-e9fe-4674-8c47-b1098e8336ce(a)t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> writes: >For the third time, I believe I understand enough, or soon will. > I have been a >voracious fan of science all my life, pouring over books in great >detail, and there's no shortage of references I can and will make to >all sorts of science writers. Does this remind anybody else of Lord Dorwin's approach to science? > I know it's very, very hard to believe that I have >something useful to offer without math, Pretty much, yeah. Given that the current QM theories are so quantitative that they can be (and are) used every day to build devices that wouldn't work if those theories were wrong, it's kind of hard to see how some "theory" without an even more rigorous mathematical underpinning would be anywhere near as useful. -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00. |