Re: metaphysics
Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:46:21 -0700
George Andrews wrote:
>
> Hi Bert;
>
> Massie wrote:
>
> Do I have any takers on explaining why it is that physics
> does not
> really explain anything?
>
> This metaphsical problem is generally viewed as originating
> from the
> issue of beginnings. That is, what is the ultimate cause
> and what
> caused that. Instead, we have the more immediate issue of
> explanations
> of what causes everyday phenomena without going to the
> singularity of
> the beginning if we just recognize that physics explains
> nothing.
>
> Bert Massie
>
> Well - I am sorry, but it is me again. Why do you not see the reality
> that physics explains much? It is in fact -BY DEFINITION - man's only
> explanation of the physical universe that does not resort to magic!
> (assuming other fields can be derived from physics of course :-) )
> Physics explains allot! You really do not want to except this and thus
> persist in your quarrying about the vagueness of "beginnings". As you
> state above, it is a metaphysical question you are asking and
> therefore can NOT be answered with a physical theory!
>
> You mention the "ultimate" cause but dismiss "immediate issues". This
> is illogical for any attempt at explaining an ultimate cause is
> arrived at (by those who subscribe to such arguments) by logically
> deducing cause from effects starting from the presently observed
> "everyday phenomena", i.e. you can't get there without starting here.
> The "bid bang" came from Einstein's work in the early 20th century.
> Hence, the very notion of a primal cause is based on present physical
> theory which you assail as void in explanatory power. Before general
> relativity, the universe just was! (religious explanations aside)
>
> Begging the question about beginnings is like asking about the physics
> inside an event horizon of a black hole - literally! Physics don't go
> there; metaphysics does. Besides, we physicist are quite content to
> do physics without worrying about metaphysical underpinnings; but it
> is important to the pursuit of knowledge to get the categories
> straight so as to ask the appropriate questions to the respective
> field.
>
> Sincerely;
> George A.
****************************************
Does Physics explain anything?
My problem is not with the predictive power of physics. I am content to
believe that we can send a rocket to the moon with Newtonian gavity
calculations or descibe the radiation from a black hole with General
Relativity and a little quantum physics. These "phenomenogical
descriptors" work well and should be accepted.
But, the point is that these are not "explanations." Let me illustrate
with an old view of the cosmos:
What holds the Earth up?
It rests on the back of a man.
Where does he stand?
On a giant turtle.
Where does the turtle stand?
It floats on a giant ocean.
There, we have a proported explanation. Our explanation however always
leads to something that we cannot explain so is it really an explanation
at all?
The lack of explanatorr power of the current day operations of the
universe seems to be under reported while metaphysics concentrates on
the singularity of the origin. Both should rise to equal prominence and
the mistaten view that physics really explains should be dropped.
Bert Massie