Re: Surviving Einstein.

From: AE (hidden_at_nospam.com)
Date: 07/11/03 

Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:14:17 +0200

Stonelock wrote:
> "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> wrote in message news:<3F0E2F9C.3050502@null.net>...
>
>>Stonelock wrote:
>>
>>>... We do not use the same metaphysical framework ...
>>
>>That's probably true, but really the discussion was more
>>about epistemology than about metaphysics.
>
>
> Actually, both.
>
>>If you bring a set of metaphysical prejudices to the task of
>>observation then you are likely to distort your seeing.
>
> And no; every theory is based on a metaphysical framework weather you
> like it or not, even yours. Whenever you speak, you are speaking
> according to certain assumptions, certain terms, which are not defined
> in function of other terms; these terms constitue your metaphysical
> framework. If this metaphysics happen to be contrary to reality, or if
> it happens to be too elaborate, then the chances are you are building
> a theory, or model dissimilar to the structure of the world around
> you.
>
> Stonelock

I do agree with you so far.

Interestingly there's not much spoken about the metaphysical framework
used in modern sciences while all scientists I know agreed to use the
same one.

What we are using is based on pragmatism - like in "using the simplest
possible description of a system that fits to the results of our
experiments" - and on theories allowing us to predict the results of
experiments and experiments allowing us to strengthen our believe in a
theory or to disprove a theory.

What we know - just to use an example from this thread - is that
electrons cannot be described as particles on a scale close to
Heisenberg's uncertainty: This was disproven as soon as it became clear
that the orbit of an electron in a hydrogene atom would collapse in case
the electron would be a particle.

On the other hand the description of an electron as a wave allowed us to
predict different properties - like the interference of electrons, the
tunneling of electrons and properties of solid matter that leaded to
developments in laser technology and semiconductors.

The fact we are using the expression "probability" and explain effects
as being "truely random" is due to our pragmatic approach:

There is till now no way to predict the occurence of these effects (like
the energy of an electron produced by beta decay or the precise time of
the decay of a radioactive nucleus) better than by describing a
probability.

As long as possible hidden variables stay hidden and long-range
interactions stay our of our scope due to the fact the dominating
sources cannot be measured it wouldn't help us at all to use them to
describe what is going on.

And as long as this is true there is no way to decide whether these
things are indeed truely random or the product of something that cannot
be measured.

We are continuously extending our framework of theories when extending
the range of our experiments - for example by developing particle
accelerators allowing to reach higher energies - but our framework has
been proven to be extremely strong as long as we keep staying on some
order of magnitude in space, time or energy.

That's why we are using this framework of theories and the metaphysical
framework it is based on: It works very well.

I think this describes quite a bit of my metaphysical framework - and I
think this is right the same used by Douglas Gwyn.

Maybe it would be interesting to learn more about your metaphysical
framework :-/

AE

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Surviving Einstein.
    ... > Stonelock wrote: ... > Interestingly there's not much spoken about the metaphysical framework ... > the electron would be a particle. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Surviving Einstein.
    ... Stonelock wrote: ... >>hydrogen atoms, some of them using relatively simple apparatus. ... Indeed your "metaphysics" seems to be opposed to the metaphysics as ... I get the impression you deny the possibility of "seeing" beyond what is ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Surviving Einstein.
    ... > Stonelock wrote: ... > about epistemology than about metaphysics. ... every theory is based on a metaphysical framework weather you ...
    (sci.crypt)
Quantcast