Re: Underneath it all
Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:49:37 -0700
George Andrews wrote:
>
> Hi Bert;
>
> George Andrews wrote:
>
> I believe, contrary to your original post, that
> you now see the distinction between physics and
> metaphysics; however, you are still demanding a
> physical response to a metaphysical question. By
> so doing, you are both frustrating yourself and
> others in attempting an answer. I can not ask how
> pink was "Stairway to Heaven" when Led Zeppelin
> first gave birth to rock stars? It mixes accepted
> categories of language and concepts (or is that
> concerts? Forgive me if you are not a "child of
> the 70's" as I am: just substitute a song title
> and band name of your choice :-) ).
>
>
> mrlab wrote:
>
> *************************
> My issue is not a confusion of physics and metaphysics.
> Your issue should not be asking me to pass some kind of
> litmus test of training to ask the question. Keep in mind
> that Gould would have Johnson shut up because he is not
> "properly" trained as an evolutionary paleontologist.
>
>
> I agree with you that knowledge of a subject can be gleaned through
> different modes-- including being "self taught"; however, it is only
> through various and sundry "litmus tests" ( I am about to take two
> weeks of tests for my Ph.D. qualifying exam this August!!!!) that we
> who are researchers/educators can assertion whether or not the
> materiel is adequately mastered. Please -- nobody wants you or others
> of different persuasions to "shut up" (well, maybe in some instances
> :-) ) but to simply "get it right" and join to the discussion.
>
>
> My point again is that physical explanations seek to
> "explain" by appealing to more and more basic "laws' or
> physical "things." From this I point out that much
> metaphysical debate has centered arround origins. Little
> has been focused on the metaphysical underpinning of what is
> happening today as opposed to the time of origins. I say
> therefore that physics really is about descriptions and
> cannot ultimately explain. The final question is this:
>
> In this space " " someone writes
> down the theory of everything.
>
> Now, I say explain this. What makes this work, or if you
> prefer, "What holds up the processes of the universe.?"
> This leads us to recognition of a metaphysical point that
> science cannot ultimately explain and that something outside
> of accessable physical entities is making all of this exist.
>
> Bert M.
>
> Forgive me, for I mean no offense; but I see nothing but categorical
> convolutions in your questioning -- despite your denial of such
> confusion in the opening sentence of this post. As evidence, just look
> at your closing statement:
>
> "This leads us to recognition of a metaphysical point that science
> cannot ultimately explain and that something outside of accessible
> physical entities is making all of this exist."
>
> Unless I misunderstand your syntax, you plainly ask "science" to
> "ultimately explain" a "metaphysical point"! I agree, science cannot
> "ultimately explain" ANYTHING "outside of accessible physical
> entities" -- by definition! But your original contention had been that
> physics can not explain anything; which is incorrect.
>
> Perhaps your original example of gravity would serve us again. What is
> wrong with these explanations: gravity is a force that acts between
> physically real objects possessing the physical measurable concepts
> known as mass and electromagnetic phenomena ( photons) by either 1) an
> exchange of other particles known as gravitons which thereby impart
> force or 2) a curvature of the space-time continuum which is not a
> force but a constraint? While these explanations are in tension with
> each other -- they are explanations non the least.
>
> If you really want to have some fun, here is the physical rival for
> "God did it" that fills in you "space" above: other -- in fact an
> infinite number of other -- "failed" universes "did it" via quantum
> tunneling of information into our universes instructing it to get the
> fundamental constants right so that life may evolve -- by chance of
> course! How is that for metaphysical physics!!!!!!!! :-)
>
> Best regards;
> George A.
>
*************
George
Thank you for your comments.
Now, I am grasping at the difference between "descriptions" and
"explanations." I do maintain that science only describes and not
explains. My basis is that so-called "explanations" in physics are
really based on appealing to some more fundamental elements which are
then based on some other more fundamental elements etc. untill we
cannot address more fundamental elements and therefore physics really
does not explain because it cannot. Actually, some in physics wonder if
there is any real underlying reality. According to a recent Scientific
American article, (I paraphrase) "until recently quarks were considered
by many as simply book-keeping entries." So are quarks an "explanation"
or not? Well, quarks are held together according to the SA article by
"gluons." This is not an explanation at all, it is simply attaching a
name to something we have no understanding of but can describe.
Further, quarks are now considered as points (of what)? If we had an
accelerator the size of the universe could we see inside quarks?
The way biochemistry can be explained is by chemistry.
The way chemistry works can be explained by atoms.
The way atoms work can be explained by only several particles including
the nucleous.
The way the nucleous works can be explained by the way particles work.
The way particles work can be explained by how quarks work.
The way quarks work cannot be explained.
(What tells the forces called "gluons" to work?)
Thus, a better word would be that science describes and provides
operative predictive rules but does not provide and cannot provide an
explanation that does not rest on the unexplainable.
I see this distinction as important because it reveals the true lack of
real explanatory power as claimed by some who feel that since we can
describe the mechanisms of the universe that we do not have a
metaphysical underpinning that cannot be explained and tested by
experiment and therefore an appeal to some external force holding up the
universe is not necessary.
Bert M.