I like the fact that he asks "mudane" questions rather than deducing answers from clever from propositions.
However, at the 26 minute mark his account of the relationship between experiment and law is incorrect. He says that one must do many experiments where the initial conditions are carefully controlled and varied each time before one can discover a law. This is true for an *empirical* law, but it is not true for a *universal* law. For example, the law of inertia is proposed first and its universality is based upon some metascientific jusitification (such as it reflects God's will or the aesthetic reason that straight lines are beautiful) instead of being derived from experiment. It is impossible to critique the law of inertia by experiment alone since any deviation from inertial motion can always be interpreted as the effect of an applied force. Harry On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:10 PM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > Finally there is a respected physicist who is able to use philosophy to > critique the prevailing doctrines of physics. > > http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/time-reborn > > Harry >
