Reality in physics

I often encounter posters who feel compelled to claim that there is
"reality in physics." I have usually asked those posters to define
what they mean by that phrase, and they usually didn't. But now I
found a charcterization of that phrase which might help out. From his
AJP article in 1960, "Truth in physics," we find on page 25 how Paul
F. Schmidt characterized "reality":

By reality people usually mean: an underlying "cause"
of (something "behind") the order of events and objects
making up nature; or the objective, independent, self-
existing external world of nature outside all experience;
or the final, ultimate correct view which all knowledge
will converge to.

I point out that those charcterizations are not equivalent, for one
reason that they differ in epistemologic vs ontologic modes of
expression. In any case, Schmidt went on to say (pp 25--26):

Our conclusion that true instrument measurement statements
do not inform us about nature or reality follows at once
from a comparison of the ordinary views of nature or
reality. Instrument measurement statements are relative to
certain instruments, dependent on scientific investigators
and conditions of the situation in which they are used,
and inform us about features of our experience rather than
external nature or reality.

Patrick

On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:22:35 -0700, Patrick Reany wrote:

Reality in physics

I often encounter posters who feel compelled to claim that there is
"reality in physics." I have usually asked those posters to define
what they mean by that phrase, and they usually didn't. But now I
found a charcterization of that phrase which might help out. From his
AJP article in 1960, "Truth in physics," we find on page 25 how Paul
F. Schmidt characterized "reality":

[snip]

As far as I care, nobody should ponder the properties of anything outside
of our own experience but filosofers and theologists. By experience I mean
everything that we can measure, see, hear,... now and in all future.

For example, saying there's a universe in which our own universe (now we
broke the term "universe" by the way) is sitting/flying/waving/... is
certainly meaningful if we can experience (in any way) the effects of it.

If we can't and never will be able to, it's just fantasy. Physics should
concentrate on explaining or at least describing everything we can
experience, perhaps that's even more than we can handle: but we should
certainly try without claiming that we're "uncovering the secrets of the
*real* world"...

--
Bart Van Hove
Antwerp, BE

Patrick Reany wrote:

Reality in physics

I often encounter posters who feel compelled to claim that there is
"reality in physics."

You are obviously not one of them, Reany. When you are not posting
vast plagiarisms of irrelevant text you are picking your ass and
loudly admiring your catch.

1) Learn some physics.
2) Read the literature. That means a day/month in a good
university library for the rest of your life.
3) if you have nothing to say, ****ing-A don't.

[snip crap plus plagiarized text]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

"Bart Van Hove" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:22:35 -0700, Patrick Reany wrote:

Reality in physics

I often encounter posters who feel compelled to claim that there is
"reality in physics." I have usually asked those posters to define
what they mean by that phrase, and they usually didn't. But now I
found a charcterization of that phrase which might help out. From his
AJP article in 1960, "Truth in physics," we find on page 25 how Paul
F. Schmidt characterized "reality":

[snip]

As far as I care, nobody should ponder the properties of anything outside
of our own experience but filosofers and theologists. By experience I mean
everything that we can measure, see, hear,... now and in all future.

Then you immediately bring yourself into conflict with those that believe in
things like love, duty etc and the mired of researches into such things.


For example, saying there's a universe in which our own universe (now we
broke the term "universe" by the way) is sitting/flying/waving/... is
certainly meaningful if we can experience (in any way) the effects of it.

If we can't and never will be able to, it's just fantasy.

Oh, and when Einstein provided definite evidence that atoms existed and no
one at that time (until the invention of the scanning tunneling microscope)
had actual seen an atom it was just fantasy?

Physics should
concentrate on explaining or at least describing everything we can
experience, perhaps that's even more than we can handle: but we should
certainly try without claiming that we're "uncovering the secrets of the
*real* world"...

I think physicists should stick to the scientific method which is test,
hypothesize, test, hypothesize over and over. Those hypothesis can contain
things we have no direct experience of, and may never have any direct
experience of (but one never knows - which is a problem with your idea of
never will be able to because you can not predict the future) but as long as
it is testable and the hypothesis is in accord with experiment who cares.

Thanks
Bill

Patrick Reany:
Reality in physics

I often encounter posters who feel compelled to claim that there is
"reality in physics." I have usually asked those posters to define
what they mean by that phrase, and they usually didn't.

You just refuse to accept that reality can be something other
than what you experience with your senses. Exactly what problem
do you have with considering an electron a ``real thing''? We
measure things which are called electrons in a theory. Electrons
have the precise properties given by the theory. Just like anything
else.

But now I
found a charcterization of that phrase which might help out. From his
AJP article in 1960, "Truth in physics," we find on page 25 how Paul
F. Schmidt characterized "reality":

[...]
Our conclusion that true instrument measurement statements
do not inform us about nature or reality follows at once
from a comparison of the ordinary views of nature or
reality. Instrument measurement statements are relative to
certain instruments, dependent on scientific investigators
and conditions of the situation in which they are used,
and inform us about features of our experience rather than
external nature or reality.

Except that no one uses the measurements to do anything but
validate a theory which is believed to be exact (at least
in the sense that at some level the theory is exact).

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

I often encounter posters who feel compelled to claim that there is
"reality in physics." I have usually asked those posters to define
what they mean by that phrase, and they usually didn't.

[snip]

They keep it secret. It's a good idea to start from some relational
properties of reality. For instance:

Margarine is not REAL butter
Zirkonian is not REAL diamond

In some philosophy books you will find the following definition:

Reality is the totality of WHAT IS

WHAT IS, is used in contrast to what APPEARS to BE.

From a descriptive point of view, there is reality in physics because
accurate predictions of phenomena as possible. The descriptive power
of physics was enhanced by the epistemology introduced by Einstein and
others before him to derive laws that do not change under coordinate
transformations.

But from a hardcore realist's point of view, description is not enough
and she not only searches for what things exist but also for how many
of each exist. She even challenges epistemology using various
arguments. But this may be a hopeless task given the structure of our
minds and our language as many philosophers have argued, notably Kant.

Most physicists rightly elect to stay out of this debate and focuss on
improving the descriptive power of their models because this is what
pays at the end of the day. Reality in physics for them means accurate
predictions. They do not give a flying saucer for what exists. They
pay the price when someone unknown obscure figure shows up and finds a
model which ahs a higher accuracy but also makes new predictions that
are confirmed by observation. The, a new reality emerges in physics
and the old reality vanishes. The old because me margarine and the new
the butter.

Mike

"Mike" wrote in message
om...
(Patrick Reany) wrote in message
. com...
Reality in physics

I often encounter posters who feel compelled to claim that there is
"reality in physics." I have usually asked those posters to define
what they mean by that phrase, and they usually didn't.

[snip]

They keep it secret. It's a good idea to start from some relational
properties of reality. For instance:

Margarine is not REAL butter
Zirkonian is not REAL diamond

In some philosophy books you will find the following definition:

Reality is the totality of WHAT IS

WHAT IS, is used in contrast to what APPEARS to BE.

From a descriptive point of view, there is reality in physics because
accurate predictions of phenomena as possible. The descriptive power
of physics was enhanced by the epistemology introduced by Einstein and
others before him to derive laws that do not change under coordinate
transformations.

But from a hardcore realist's point of view, description is not enough
and she not only searches for what things exist but also for how many
of each exist. She even challenges epistemology using various
arguments. But this may be a hopeless task given the structure of our
minds and our language as many philosophers have argued, notably Kant.

Most physicists rightly elect to stay out of this debate and focuss on
improving the descriptive power of their models because this is what
pays at the end of the day. Reality in physics for them means accurate
predictions. They do not give a flying saucer for what exists. They
pay the price when someone unknown obscure figure shows up and finds a
model which ahs a higher accuracy but also makes new predictions that
are confirmed by observation. The, a new reality emerges in physics
and the old reality vanishes.

But you already said that 'Reality in physics for them means accurate
predictions' - so how can a new reality be said to emerge - the new theory
is in accord with experiment which, according to you, is all they care
about.

The old because me margarine and the new the butter.

The following is the definition of scientific method:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0147300.html. Notice noting in it
about realty. Could it be that scientists refusal to be drawn into issues
about reality is that science really has nothing to do with it? Science is
a hard enough discipline without being drawn into arguments that does not
really concern it.

Thanks
Bill

Mike wrote:

predictions. They do not give a flying saucer for what exists. They
pay the price when someone unknown obscure figure shows up and finds a
model which ahs a higher accuracy but also makes new predictions that
are confirmed by observation. The, a new reality emerges in physics
and the old reality vanishes. The old because me margarine and the new
the butter.

How often does this happen. The last instance of this kind that I know
of is some obscure patent clerk in Switzerland turning physics on its
ear. The other upsetter, Max Planck was an establishment professor with
a Good Idea.

Bob Kolker

In article KAmpc.4938$gr.364673@attbi_s52,
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:


Mike wrote:

predictions. They do not give a flying saucer for what exists. They
pay the price when someone unknown obscure figure shows up and finds a
model which ahs a higher accuracy but also makes new predictions that
are confirmed by observation. The, a new reality emerges in physics
and the old reality vanishes. The old because me margarine and the new
the butter.

How often does this happen. The last instance of this kind that I know
of is some obscure patent clerk in Switzerland turning physics on its
ear. The other upsetter, Max Planck was an establishment professor with
a Good Idea.

How can you sit there and type this at a PC, hit the send
mechanism pushing all your bits to places you'll never
visit?

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

[snip]

The following is the definition of scientific method:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0147300.html. Notice noting in it
about realty. Could it be that scientists refusal to be drawn into issues
about reality is that science really has nothing to do with it? Science is
a hard enough discipline without being drawn into arguments that does not
really concern it.

Sounds to me like the use of pragmatism.


Thanks
Bill

Bill, what is the scientific method a method of? There's a lot more to
science than hypothesis testing. BTW, define "hypothesis" for us.

Patrick