Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
It is interesting that you would claim that I agree with everything you said, because to me this statement is the core of your position, and I have advanced an argument to point out the flaws in this position. Particles don't behave in accordance with laws, we create an axiomatic system that creates both the concept of particles and the concept of laws, so we are of course capable of discovering/describing them, we created the concepts. When we are done creating the concepts, we evaluate their usefulness in understanding reality, and iterate the process, but if we lose track along the way of the difference between our mental constructions and reality, we are led to make unsupportable claims like "everything is unifiable". To me that position seems completely counter to the one you were advancing, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not we agree!
|
I thought, when I stated precisely the same view, but using the example of fluid dynamics (ie a theory we already have, but pretending we didn't have it yet) rather than particle physics, that you had overtly assented to exactly my point. Although I did notice (but chose to ignore) you added some stuff afterwards which seemed to contradict yourself.
I don't think we need to agree to disagree ... yet. You have now made yourself sufficiently clear (at last) I think I can see why you seemed to agree with me but persist in saying you don't.
You say that "particles don't behave in accordance with laws...". I would like to propose that I might from time to time quote you on that, for example as follows: "Ken has said elsewhere 'particles don't behave in accordance with laws...' (precise quotation). Just so you know where he is coming from in general."
But it is a quote out of context. When I say "particles do behave in accordance with laws" I think I am actually using my words with different meanings from when you apparently say the opposite. I think I am actually saying the thing you do believe. And you are saying something that I think is a fairly pointless philosphical quibble, though please go ahead and enjoy yourself making it. When I read what you say about axioms etc, I actually make similar points myself in another thread about is mathematics true. But I don't feel the need to worry about it, as you clearly do. Whether particles "exist" or not, or whether my "particle" is actually a model in an axiomatic system or not, who cares, in my view. I'm a "just do the sums and don't worry about what it really is" man.
In science the only thing that objectively exist are measurements. Theories explain measurements (Popper). So when I say "particles do behave in accordance with laws" what I am actually saying is that "measurements we make can be explained in accordance with laws, and given measured initial conditions, measured later conditions will reliably behave the same way each time, so that in principle laws exist even if we haven't found them yet". As to what the thing is that actually is being measured, well sages, priests and philosophers can argue about that, to no useful purpose in my view. Measurements is all we will ever really have, and I do believe that the measurements will show reliable and repeated behaviour. To deny that is to deny the possibility of reliable scientific laws in a Popperian sense. I don't think you are going that far.