Theoretical physics according to McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Physics

**Patrick Reany** · #1 July 2nd 03 posted to sci.physics

Edward Green wrote:

(Patrick Reany) wrote in message . com...

I have defined physics as the search for the smallest set of rules
that completely describes the material world under natural conditions.
How does this definition differ essentially from that given below
(beyond being obviously shorter)?

Yes, but it still contains extraneous words: what do "material" and
"natural" add to the above? Why not just say physics is the search
for the smallest ruleset which completely describes observation?

"Natural" adds the possibility that there might be a non-natural cause to some events (either regularly or
sporadically), and I think that physics should leave this metaphysical question open. "Material" is what
Einstein's demanded of mechanics --- i.e., mechanics is the study of material particles in motion. In
essence, "material" means has mass, a well-defined observable in principle. Our measuring instruments live
within the material world.

With those small changes I like your model of brevity.

Is the use of the term "fundamental laws" below really needed or even
meaningful technically? How does the definition below get around the
vagueness of the meaning of "fundamental laws"?

In this context we may consider "fundamental laws" a shibboleth, which
is another name for buzz-word. We may consider it to mean the same
thing as the elements of your smallest ruleset. I like yours better
for novelty of expression.

The real problem with the term "fundamental" in "fundamental laws" in such physics textbooks is that it is
usually not defined. How else could it be defined except as the smallest set of rules, or something to that
effect? How are students of a first course in college physics supposed to find any concrete meaning in this
phrase "fundamental laws"? So why then do textbook authors use the phrase?

My preferred definition is a bit longer, adding in the terms "behavior" and "inanimate"

Physics is the search for the smallest set of rules that completely describes
the behavior of the inanimate material world under natural conditions.

Right now I think that the two version are identical in traditional meaning because I don't know of anything
that a rule can describe except behavior/s, and, traditionally, physics was not held accountable for living
systems per se, except to the degree that such systems could be modeled as inanimate. Maybe you can think of
a counterexamples.

Brevity was not my only goal; clarity and separation from the other sciences was also, and the obvious lack
of metaphysical dogma (for which I have already been criticized). In fact, I found that maintaining a
distinction between physics and chemistry and physics and geology, etc, was the hardest constraint to
satisfy on the definition formulation. Obviously my definition has a built-in separation from biology in the
sense that the higher biological functions of consciousness may or may not be describable purely in terms of
physics -- time will tell. It may be that biology has its own principles that are needed to explain certain
aspects of life that physics can't deal with. I don't know this, but I allow for the possibility. Also, it
may seems that biological systems are strictly off limits to physics by this definition. That is not my
intent, however. I simply mean that when physics deals with biological systems that it model the biological
system as either a machine or chemical process or some such thing amenable to the modeling concepts already
used in physics to deal with inanimate material bodies.

Another interesting point to make about the proposed definition is that it implies neither a unique
conceptual framework for physics nor a unique set of end rules. It does, however, assume that rules are
countable, which seems pretty obvious that they are.

The reason it is sufficient to describe the behavior of the material world (i.e., the set of all presumed
material objects) is because therein lies our physical measuring instruments, and they are, by the dictates
of science -- our official contact with the world external to our minds. So, to the end goal of describing
the behavior of the material world we can, if we want, freely invent concepts such as point particle, force,
energy, photons, the Principle of Least Action, orgone, etc, and then see what form these concepts take in
the development of rules faithful to physical behavior, which ones work well and which ones don't, and
whether they are the "best" choices for concinnity and for logical economy of our resulting formal system.

For example, one can regard the free invention of the photon concept as instumental in the explanation of
the material world of electrons, atoms, and metals. It helps to explain the light-electron emission effect
(also known as the photoelectric effect) and the Compton effect, just to name two.

Patrick

**Edward Green** · #2 July 2nd 03 posted to sci.physics

Patrick Reany wrote in message ...
Edward Green wrote:

(Patrick Reany) wrote in message . com...

I have defined physics as the search for the smallest set of rules
that completely describes the material world under natural conditions.
How does this definition differ essentially from that given below
(beyond being obviously shorter)?

Yes, but it still contains extraneous words: what do "material" and
"natural" add to the above? Why not just say physics is the search
for the smallest ruleset which completely describes observation?

"Natural" adds the possibility that there might be a non-natural cause to some events (either regularly or
sporadically), and I think that physics should leave this metaphysical question open. "Material" is what
Einstein's demanded of mechanics --- i.e., mechanics is the study of material particles in motion. In
essence, "material" means has mass, a well-defined observable in principle. Our measuring instruments live
within the material world.

To each his own. It seems to me you've brilliantly pared down the
rose bush to a single perfect bloom, but left a scraggly branch
sticking out the side. Of course one cannot rule out that there is a
one sort of daily rule set, and another which is only trotted out for
special occasions; and one might be led to label these cases the
"natural" and the "supernatural": But to me, what is, is part of
nature -- or at least reality. So the distinction is empty or at
least misleading. Similarly "material". Why qualify your rose?

I favor "observation" because it is itself neutral. And besides, in
stating a goal one doesn't have to add qualifications like "if it is
possible" or "insofar as we can", and so forth. A goal is a goal,
possible or not.

In this context we may consider "fundamental laws" a shibboleth, which
is another name for buzz-word. We may consider it to mean the same
thing as the elements of your smallest ruleset. I like yours better
for novelty of expression.

The real problem with the term "fundamental" in "fundamental laws" in such physics textbooks is that it is
usually not defined.

I chose the word "shibboleth" with care, not at random. A shibboleth
is literally a word or phrase which shows somebody else that you are
alright. That's it. "Fundamental laws" is the kind of phrase one
expects to hear in attempts to define "physics". Because defining
_anything_ is eventually a circular exercise, I am not particularly
worried that we can't define "fundamental" in particular. I am more
bothered that, in its shibbolechlier nature, it is a substitute for
thought.

If you don't mind, or even if you do, I'm going to steal your
definition with my modification -- giving your full credit for the
original version, of course. We are after all scientists are we not,
and not playwrights. ;-) I was "influenced" by your version, and in
removing a word or two, find it captures something I have been
describing for a long time, but without expressing it so well. And if
you want more praise than that, you're out of luck. :-)

BTW, ignore Uncle Al. He's annoying because he knows a lot and if
often right about substantive things. Which gives him personal
license, apparently, to ride his own personal hobby horses whenever
given a ghost of an excuse. But the quadruped he is riding is really
an ass.

...

**Patrick Reany** · #3 July 3rd 03 posted to sci.physics

(Edward Green) wrote in message . com...
Patrick Reany wrote in message ...
Edward Green wrote:

(Patrick Reany) wrote in message . com...

I have defined physics as the search for the smallest set of rules
that completely describes the material world under natural conditions.
How does this definition differ essentially from that given below
(beyond being obviously shorter)?

Yes, but it still contains extraneous words: what do "material" and
"natural" add to the above? Why not just say physics is the search
for the smallest ruleset which completely describes observation?

"Natural" adds the possibility that there might be a non-natural cause to some events (either regularly or
sporadically), and I think that physics should leave this metaphysical question open. "Material" is what
Einstein's demanded of mechanics --- i.e., mechanics is the study of material particles in motion. In
essence, "material" means has mass, a well-defined observable in principle. Our measuring instruments live
within the material world.

To each his own. It seems to me you've brilliantly pared down the
rose bush to a single perfect bloom, but left a scraggly branch
sticking out the side. Of course one cannot rule out that there is a
one sort of daily rule set, and another which is only trotted out for
special occasions; and one might be led to label these cases the
"natural" and the "supernatural": But to me, what is, is part of
nature -- or at least reality. So the distinction is empty or at
least misleading. Similarly "material". Why qualify your rose?

Besides the other reasons I gave to include "natural" in the
definition, it is also partly a shibboleth of my own; after all,
science and physics are often characterized and/or defined as dealing
with the natural realm, and we do hear a lot about "natural laws."
Operationally speaking, an event can be held formally as
"supernatural" if in the concensus of the experts in the field that
deals with events of that kind they decide that the event improbable
to the point of being in direct contradiction to accepted known laws.
So, like UFOs, some such (perhaps most) "supernatual" events will
eventually be reconciled to mainstream science or physics, but perhaps
some won't.

I favor "observation" because it is itself neutral. And besides, in
stating a goal one doesn't have to add qualifications like "if it is
possible" or "insofar as we can", and so forth. A goal is a goal,
possible or not.

It's good to have goals, even bold ones, but not arrogant ones. This
personal consideration is always with me.

In this context we may consider "fundamental laws" a shibboleth, which
is another name for buzz-word. We may consider it to mean the same
thing as the elements of your smallest ruleset. I like yours better
for novelty of expression.

The real problem with the term "fundamental" in "fundamental laws" in such physics textbooks is that it is
usually not defined.

I chose the word "shibboleth" with care, not at random. A shibboleth
is literally a word or phrase which shows somebody else that you are
alright. That's it. "Fundamental laws" is the kind of phrase one
expects to hear in attempts to define "physics". Because defining
_anything_ is eventually a circular exercise, I am not particularly
worried that we can't define "fundamental" in particular. I am more
bothered that, in its shibbolechlier nature, it is a substitute for
thought.

I understand now.

If you don't mind, or even if you do, I'm going to steal your
definition with my modification -- giving your full credit for the
original version, of course. We are after all scientists are we not,
and not playwrights. ;-) I was "influenced" by your version, and in
removing a word or two, find it captures something I have been
describing for a long time, but without expressing it so well. And if
you want more praise than that, you're out of luck. :-)

BTW, ignore Uncle Al. He's annoying because he knows a lot and if
often right about substantive things. Which gives him personal
license, apparently, to ride his own personal hobby horses whenever
given a ghost of an excuse. But the quadruped he is riding is really
an ass.

...

Patrick

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Modern physics still based on Aether.	The Ghost In The Machine	Physics - General Discussion	4	July 8th 03 05:39 PM