Most gardening books in England are fairly hopeless for someone on the Northwest - here the environment is mostly rain and questions on how to keep most of it off one's crop are rarely addressed - one finds a flood of recommendations on water preservation. Even the photon leaving a particle leaves us with questions on how it 'achieves' light speed in what we mistakenly regard as nothing. Physics enters a form of relableism here, collating evidence of the very small with that from the cosmos.
On Mar 6, 10:59 am, sadovnik socratus <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote: > About ‘tropical fish’ > One can study tropical fish in a restaurant and have > his a culinary philosophical doctrine . > Other can study tropical fish in their own surrounding natural > environment. His philosophy is absolutely different. > The problem is that physicists study electron without know > its own surrounding natural environment - vacuum. > Therefore we have ‘a culinary philosophical doctrine’. > ==. > > On Mar 6, 10:22 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Electron is now three quasi-particles - spinon, holon and orbiton. > > Physics is less about what an electron is than that it helps us use > > them - "sending them down wires so our computers work" and so on. We > > don't know what a particle is. > > > My take on Socratus is he may ask (rightly) too much of science. > > > My take on science is this: > > ‘… scientific realism[is defined] as the common sense (or common > > science) conception that, subject to a recognition that scientific > > methods are fallible and that most scientific knowledge is > > approximate, we are justified in accepting the most secure findings of > > scientists "at face value." What requires explanation is why this is a > > philosophical position rather than just a common sense one. Consider, > > for example, tropical fish realism -- the doctrine that there really > > are tropical fish; that the little books you buy about them at pet > > stores tend to get it approximately right about their appearance, > > behavior, food and temperature requirements, etc.; and that the fish > > have these properties largely independently of our theories about > > them. That's a pretty clear doctrine, but it's so commonsensical that > > it doesn't seem to have any particular philosophical import. Why is > > the analogous doctrine about science a philosophical doctrine? > > The answer is that -- setting aside skepticism about the external > > world -- there are no philosophical arguments against tropical fish > > realism, whereas important philosophical challenges have been raised > > against scientific realism.’ (Boyd 2002:1 [] mine) > > > The philosophical issues are intractable if we start with the idea > > they can be bottomed-out. With a comfortable sinecure I might spend > > the rest of my life trying, say, to reconcile what the Ancient Greeks > > knew about argument and complex set theory in the programmes of > > Scheibe, Ludwig and Sneed (see Balzer and Moulines 1996; Ludwig & > > Thurber 1996 and Scheibe 2001). The later work is German and may give > > us some pointers by describing the complexity of theory formation in > > physics. Ludwig’s main points are: > > • Physical observations are first translated into sentences of an > > auxiliary mathematical theory containing only finite sets, and, in a > > second step, approximately embedded into an idealized theory. By this > > manoeuver the authors accentuate the contrast between finite physical > > operations and mathematical assumptions involving infinite sets. > > • Inaccuracy sets and unsharp measurements are always considered right > > from the start – the role of approximation is held key in theory > > formation. > > • The ‘basic domain’ of a theory is now that part of the ‘application > > domain’ where the theory is successfully applied, up to a certain > > degree of inaccuracy. > > • The complicated terminology concerning various kinds of hypotheses > > in Ludwig is radically reduced to a small number of cases including > > fuzzy hypotheses. > > • The problem of unsharp indirect measurements is reformulated in an > > elegant way which yet should be scrutinized by means of case studies. > > > I'm not good at this stuff as it 'butters no parsnips' in my life - > > just interested. Issues of science and technology as ideology are > > well articulated in Critical Theory (esp. Habermas) and I take them to > > be right if construing 'use' (as in the vampire squid of neo-classical > > economics and corrupt politics). > > > We don't work in the certainty of faith in science and approximation > > plays a key role. I think this gets lost and to some extent Nom I > > think your nominalism plays a role in ironing some of this out. David > > Deutsche recently said: > > > Constructors appear under various names in physics and other fields. > > For instance, > > in thermodynamics, a heat engine is a constructor because of the > > condition that it be > > capable of ‘operating in a cycle’. But they do not currently appear in > > laws of physics. > > Indeed, there is no possible role for them in what I shall call the > > prevailing conception > > of fundamental physics, which is roughly as follows: everything > > physical is composed of elementary constituents such as particles, > > fields and spacetime; there is > > an initial state of those constituents; and laws of motion determine > > how the state > > evolves continuously thereafter. In contrast, a construction is > > characterised only > > by its inputs and outputs, and involves subsystems (the constructor > > and the > > substrate), playing different roles, and most constructors are > > themselves composite > > objects. So, in the prevailing conception, no law of physics could > > possibly mention > > them: the whole continuous process of interaction between constructor > > and substrate > > is already determined by the universal laws governing their > > constituents. > > However, the constructor theory that I shall propose in this paper is > > not primarily > > the theory of constructions or constructors, as the prevailing > > conception would > > require it to be. It is the theory of which transformations > > input state of substrates → output state of substrates > > can be caused and which cannot, and why. As I shall explain, the idea > > is that the > > fundamental questions of physics can all be expressed in terms of > > those issues, and > > that the answers do not depend on what the constructor is, so it can > > be abstracted > > away, leaving transformations as the basic subject matter of the > > theory. I shall > > argue that we should expect such a theory to constitute a fundamental > > branch of > > physics with new, universal laws, and to provide a powerful new > > language for > > expressing other theories. > > > We are not perplexed alone! > > > On Mar 5, 6:42 pm, sadovnik socratus <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote: > > > > Are you "Physics" perplexed, like me? Options > > > ==. > > > 1 > > > *ATOMS* - have electrons. . . . . . . . . > > > 2 > > > *ELECTRONS* Negatively charged particles that constitute electricity. > > > 3 > > > *ELECTRON VOLT* . . . . > > > 4 > > > *FERMIONS* . . have leptons . . . . . . . > > > 5 > > > *LEPTONS* . . . .Lightweight particles like the electrons that > > > constitute electrical current and . . . . . > > > 6 > > > *NEUTRINOS* Extremely light, almost massless, invisible particles > > > produced > > > in radioactive decays, they are part of the lepton family . . . . > > > 7. > > > PHOTONS* Particles that transmit electromagnetic forces, or light. > > > 8 > > > *STANDARD MODEL* A set of equations that describes forces of nature > > > in > > > terms of elementary particles, known as fermions, . . . . . > > > 9 > > > There are three forces of nature in the Standard Model: > > > light, or electromagnetism . . . . > > > ===. > > > Half of your perplexed points tied with electron / photon. > > > Nobody knows what electron is. > > > If we solve that problem - the perplex will be disappeared > > > ==========================.. > > > The Electron’s puzzle. > > > ===. > > > 1900, 1905 > > > Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f. > > > 1916 > > > Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c, > > > 1928 > > > Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy: > > > +E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2. > > > According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s > > > energy is infinite: E= ∞ > > > Questions. > > > Why does the simplest particle - electron have five ( 5 ) formulas ? > > > What is connection between them ? > > > Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ? > > > a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass > > > b) Maxwell’s equations > > > c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law > > > d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law > > > e) Fermi-Dirac statistics > > > What is connection between them ? > > > # > > > What is an electron ? > > > Nobody knows. > > > In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron > > > All of them are problematical > > > We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics. > > > But how can we trust them if we don’t know what electron is ? > > > ==. > > > Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations: > > > > "One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae > > > have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, > > > that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, > > > that we get more out of them than was originally put into them." > > > =. > > > The banal Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe, > > > he is much wiser than we are. > > > ==========. > > > Conclusion from some article: > > > One of the best kept secrets of science is > > > that physicists have lost their grip on reality. > > > ========. > > > > On Mar 5, 7:10 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > I know a bit about, say ..... half of the terms..... (maybe more) > > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/science/a-glossary-of-physics-terms... > > > > > Glossary: A Guide for the Perplexed > > > > > *ATOMS* The basic units of ordinary matter consist of one or more > > > > electrons > > > > circling a tiny, dense nucleus of protons and neutrons. > > > > > *BOSONS* Particles that can transmit forces between other particles, > > > > according to quantum theory, the lingua franca of modern physics. An > > > > example is the photon, which carries electromagnetism or light — and, of > > > > course, the bosons called Higgs, W > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
