Re: MD "linear causality"

From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 15:49:18 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: MD "linear causality""

    Science buffs and rebuffers,

    The following quote of Einstein that I read in Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu
    Li Masters (a book about quantum mechanics) has had a profound influence on
    how I think about science (as has Pirsig's campfire "ghost" story):

    ³Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
    however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our
    endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to
    understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving
    hands, even hears the ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he
    is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be
    responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure
    his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will
    never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot
    even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison.²

    What Einstein is saying is that the philosophically-minded scientist never
    assumes that his/her explanation is reality. Human words and mental
    constructs can never fully represent reality, at best they point to reality.
    The Bohr model of an atom (electrons orbiting a nucleus in solar system
    fashion) is not what an atom is. It is a tool for imaging the invisible, and
    it is a useful one, but ultimately it doesnıt even make sense to talk about
    what an electron looks like. The range of wavelengths of visible light is
    too large relative to the size of an electron to make the idea of seeing an
    electron meaningful. The Bohr model of the atom like any physical theory is
    a model of reality‹an analogy. An analogy draws a comparison to create
    insight, but by definition an analogy is never factually true, so it is
    never meaningful to ask if an analogy is correct.

    Try to think of what it would mean to directly compare a mental construct
    like ³force equals mass times acceleration² to reality. You should hear the
    sound of one hand clapping. Einstein ³cannot even understand the meaning of
    such a comparison,² but those who subscribe to Scientism think they can.
    To me, Scientism is confusing scientific models of reality with reality
    itself.

    To continue Einsteinıs analogy, force, mass, and acceleration are parts of
    our model watch, and the relationship F = ma makes predictions that are
    consistent with our experiences of the Universe Watch. While in the watch
    analogy we could imagine opening up the Universe Watch to compare its inner
    workings to that of our model watch, such a comparison makes no sense at all
    when we step back from Einsteinıs analogy and try to imagine comparing a
    scientific theory to the actual universe which has no case to be opened or
    inner mechanism to peer at. So it never makes sense to say that a
    scientific model is True, instead its usefulness in making predictions is
    the measure of its worth.

    Steve

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 06 2003 - 16:37:34 GMT