Physics and Reality.

Reality is prime. If anything exists, it is only
because reality allows it to exist. Physics is a
science by which man endeavors to determine reality.
It is reality being determined, since reality is all
that there is to be determined.
Physics is able to be a science precisely because
the nature of reality allows it to be a science.
Reality has shown itself to act according to laws or
principles, which makes it repeatable. That is, if
the same situation exists, the same results occur.
The scientific method uses this characteristic of
reality to employ tests to make decisions as to what
reality is.
Reany does the following: Reany is able to
identify weaknesses in man (he only has five senses),
and weaknesses in science (it can never test
everything), and weaknesses in reality itself (it
makes no effort to directly tell us things), and
concludes that man will never ever really know
reality. This is, of course, only an assumption. He
takes this assumption, and without any scientific
testing to support this assumption, he assumes that
his assumption is correct, and therefore concludes
that physics cannot be about finding reality.
Thus, to him, physics is only about determining
the results of tests. Well, all this is of course
silly, and has no science to it at all. It is all
useless speculations. And Reany tries to make it
physics, with no defining testing to support his
conclusions. Thus, he is acting like a philosopher,
not a scientist, and has corrupted everything he has
touched.
Only time will really tell us what limits we might
eventually reach in this effort to find reality. But
so far, as others have already pointed out to Reany,
we really do know much. And the successes of science
can easily be seen and appreciated.
I have often suggested to Reany, that he ought to
take his philosophy, and determine ways in which it
can be tested. If he could actually test even one
point of any philosophy, he would go down in history
as being the first man to advance this area of
thought. But he seems to miss the importance of this
point.
What ever we might eventually be able to do, or
not do, cannot change the fact that the purpose of
science is to help man understand, and thus, control,
his reality. And we are doing this. And we will
continue to do this. And there really is no end in
sight. You, Reany, need to be more optimistic. You
definitely need to be more scientific. All these
things would do you, and us, a world of good!

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
om...
Physics and Reality.

Reality is prime. If anything exists, it is only
because reality allows it to exist.

I wish people who mistake semantic word games for physics would post to a
philosophy forum.

Rest in same vein mercifully snipped.

Bill

Knee bone connected to the finger bone?



"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:

Physics and Reality.

Reality is prime. If anything exists, it is only
because reality allows it to exist. Physics is a
science by which man endeavors to determine reality.
It is reality being determined, since reality is all
that there is to be determined.
Physics is able to be a science precisely because
the nature of reality allows it to be a science.
Reality has shown itself to act according to laws or
principles, which makes it repeatable. That is, if
the same situation exists, the same results occur.
The scientific method uses this characteristic of
reality to employ tests to make decisions as to what
reality is.
Reany does the following: Reany is able to
identify weaknesses in man (he only has five senses),
and weaknesses in science (it can never test
everything), and weaknesses in reality itself (it
makes no effort to directly tell us things), and
concludes that man will never ever really know
reality. This is, of course, only an assumption. He
takes this assumption, and without any scientific
testing to support this assumption, he assumes that
his assumption is correct, and therefore concludes
that physics cannot be about finding reality.
Thus, to him, physics is only about determining
the results of tests. Well, all this is of course
silly, and has no science to it at all. It is all
useless speculations. And Reany tries to make it
physics, with no defining testing to support his
conclusions. Thus, he is acting like a philosopher,
not a scientist, and has corrupted everything he has
touched.
Only time will really tell us what limits we might
eventually reach in this effort to find reality. But
so far, as others have already pointed out to Reany,
we really do know much. And the successes of science
can easily be seen and appreciated.
I have often suggested to Reany, that he ought to
take his philosophy, and determine ways in which it
can be tested. If he could actually test even one
point of any philosophy, he would go down in history
as being the first man to advance this area of
thought. But he seems to miss the importance of this
point.
What ever we might eventually be able to do, or
not do, cannot change the fact that the purpose of
science is to help man understand, and thus, control,
his reality. And we are doing this. And we will
continue to do this. And there really is no end in
sight. You, Reany, need to be more optimistic. You
definitely need to be more scientific. All these
things would do you, and us, a world of good!

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

(Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote in message . com...
Physics and Reality.

Reality is prime. If anything exists, it is only
because reality allows it to exist. Physics is a
science by which man endeavors to determine reality.
It is reality being determined, since reality is all
that there is to be determined.
Physics is able to be a science precisely because
the nature of reality allows it to be a science.
Reality has shown itself to act according to laws or
principles, which makes it repeatable. That is, if
the same situation exists, the same results occur.
The scientific method uses this characteristic of
reality to employ tests to make decisions as to what
reality is.
Reany does the following: Reany is able to
identify weaknesses in man (he only has five senses),
and weaknesses in science (it can never test
everything), and weaknesses in reality itself (it
makes no effort to directly tell us things), and
concludes that man will never ever really know
reality. This is, of course, only an assumption. He
takes this assumption, and without any scientific
testing to support this assumption, he assumes that
his assumption is correct, and therefore concludes
that physics cannot be about finding reality.
Thus, to him, physics is only about determining
the results of tests. Well, all this is of course
silly, and has no science to it at all. It is all
useless speculations. And Reany tries to make it
physics, with no defining testing to support his
conclusions. Thus, he is acting like a philosopher,
not a scientist, and has corrupted everything he has
touched.
Only time will really tell us what limits we might
eventually reach in this effort to find reality. But
so far, as others have already pointed out to Reany,
we really do know much. And the successes of science
can easily be seen and appreciated.
I have often suggested to Reany, that he ought to
take his philosophy, and determine ways in which it
can be tested. If he could actually test even one
point of any philosophy, he would go down in history
as being the first man to advance this area of
thought. But he seems to miss the importance of this
point.
What ever we might eventually be able to do, or
not do, cannot change the fact that the purpose of
science is to help man understand, and thus, control,
his reality. And we are doing this. And we will
continue to do this. And there really is no end in
sight. You, Reany, need to be more optimistic. You
definitely need to be more scientific. All these
things would do you, and us, a world of good!

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

You seem to want to develop metaphysical beliefs about the world
which, although you can never prove them using the methods of science,
you want to treat them as absolute truths anyway. I simply deny you
that as being scientific. Hold your beliefs as natural philosophic,
rather than scientific, and I have no objection to that.

Patrick

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
om...
Physics and Reality.

Reality is prime. If anything exists, it is only
because reality allows it to exist.

I wish people who mistake semantic word games for physics would post to a
philosophy forum.

Rest in same vein mercifully snipped.

Bill

Bill, you're attitude is part of the problem, not part of the
solution. Obarr's misconceptions about the philosophy of physics leads
to his misconceptions about modern physical theories. The subject _is_
relevant here. The subject is an occasional topic in the American
Journal of Physics, by the way.

Patrick

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
om...
Physics and Reality.

Reality is prime. If anything exists, it is only
because reality allows it to exist.

I wish people who mistake semantic word games for physics would post to
a
philosophy forum.

Rest in same vein mercifully snipped.

Bill

Bill, you're attitude is part of the problem, not part of the
solution. Obarr's misconceptions about the philosophy of physics leads
to his misconceptions about modern physical theories. The subject _is_
relevant here. The subject is an occasional topic in the American
Journal of Physics, by the way.

Patrick please look at the statements written above. They are not
reasonable philosophical discussions - they are simply word games. The
philosophy of relativity is a legitimate discussion item for this forum -
but it must elevate itself above mere semantic word games. An example of
what I would consider good philosophical style is -
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...riefs/Real.htm. Another
example is a recent post of Sal where is carefully analyzed the
philosophical implications of physics use of real numbers

Thanks
Bill


Patrick

(Patrick Reany) wrote in message om...

In
(Patrick Reany) wrote:
In
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Physics and Reality.

Reality is prime. If anything exists, it is only
because reality allows it to exist. Physics is a
science by which man endeavors to determine
reality. It is reality being determined, since
reality is all that there is to be determined.
. . .

delete of over 30 lines of O'Barr's comments,
because Reany made no specific comments about them.


Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
All you did, Reany, was to ignore every thought
made. Your final and only response to my entire post
was:

Reany's only return comment:
You seem to want to develop metaphysical beliefs
about the world which, although you can never prove
them using the methods of science, you want to treat
them as absolute truths anyway. I simply deny you
that as being scientific. Hold your beliefs as
natural philosophic, rather than scientific, and I
have no objection to that.

O'Barr comments:
You can have no objections to anything, Reany!
Your above 7 line return comment simply will not
do. You are the one not doing science, not me. The
purpose of science, as I gave it, is determined by
man, not by tests. I am free to state the purpose of
science with no other support needed. But what you
are doing, saying that there is no reality, or that
reality cannot be known, these are being presented by
you as scientific statements, and thus must be
considered as given. You should in all honesty make
a statement-by-statement reply to what I presented.


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
SNIP
An example of
what I would consider good philosophical style is -
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...riefs/Real.htm.

Nice one!

Harald

Another
example is a recent post of Sal where is carefully analyzed the
philosophical implications of physics use of real numbers

(Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote in message . com...
(Patrick Reany) wrote in message om...

In
(Patrick Reany) wrote:
In
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Physics and Reality.

Reality is prime. If anything exists, it is only
because reality allows it to exist. Physics is a
science by which man endeavors to determine
reality. It is reality being determined, since
reality is all that there is to be determined.
. . .

delete of over 30 lines of O'Barr's comments,
because Reany made no specific comments about them.


Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
All you did, Reany, was to ignore every thought
made. Your final and only response to my entire post
was:

Reany's only return comment:
You seem to want to develop metaphysical beliefs
about the world which, although you can never prove
them using the methods of science, you want to treat
them as absolute truths anyway. I simply deny you
that as being scientific. Hold your beliefs as
natural philosophic, rather than scientific, and I
have no objection to that.

O'Barr comments:
You can have no objections to anything, Reany!
Your above 7 line return comment simply will not
do. You are the one not doing science, not me. The
purpose of science, as I gave it, is determined by
man, not by tests. I am free to state the purpose of
science with no other support needed. But what you
are doing, saying that there is no reality, or that
reality cannot be known, these are being presented by
you as scientific statements,

Is everyone on this NG so damn completely ignorant of philosophy as to
not be able to distinguish philosophical claims from scientific
claims? I NEVER said that my statements were "scientific." Of course
they're not!

[snip]

I didn't say there there is no reality or that reality can't be known.
But if you want to make claims about what you know about reality,
you'll need two things first: 1) a definition of reality, and 2) an
epistemology that justifies all your claims as to how you know what is
reality.

Patrick

Patrick Reany wrote:

I didn't say there there is no reality or that reality can't be known.
But if you want to make claims about what you know about reality,
you'll need two things first: 1) a definition of reality, and 2) an
epistemology that justifies all your claims as to how you know what is
reality.


What will justify the justifications?

Bob Kolker