20 Apr 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarri figured that line would bring you out a little before parameter day 😀
Bah, this claim of yours is bunk. No physics can proceed without there first being a metaphysics in place. The existence of observable particulars is a preconditon for there being observation.
oh i'm sure that those philosophers were probably already metaphysicsing around as was no doubt the physicist, but no one had found an appropriate name, a suitable identity, a unique distinction.
because it took place after they met a physicist, they called it metaphysics.
now that they could call it something, they went ahead and developed it to its full philosophic glory.
20 Apr 03
7 edits
Originally posted by bbarrso is this like saying you have to define what makes something observable? just like we are going to define the parameters of of this thread?
The existence of observable particulars is a preconditon for there being observation.
if so does not that mean we have to define what observation really is as well?
for instance, animals or even people don't always define observable particulars, right? yet, they do 'observe'.
ah! but you are saying that those particulars are already there - they just exist, so they may be observed.
also,
do the observable particulars define the observation? sort of like a telescope is used to observe light, but not sound?
also
is your sentence
"The existence of observable particulars is a preconditon for there being observation."
a tautology?
is it like saying
"we only observe observable particulars that exist"
just like earlier you pointed out
"it is our experience of reality that is subjective" is tautology.
???
many questions - appreciate whatever you can answer.
20 Apr 03
from putzing to parameterization
well parameter day is here more or less, so we should now attempt to define some stuff. here are segements of barr's earlier posts (slightly rearranged) that we can perhaps base things from:
"As to the first notion, that of priority, are you referring to temporal priority, as in physics cam into existence at time T and math came into existence at some time after T? Or, rather, are you referring to logical priority, as in 'it is constitutive of the practice of physics that mathematics is also practiced'? Or, rather, do you mean something like pragmatic priority, as in 'it is only with the practice of mathematics that any empirical investigation of the natural world counts as being an instance of physics'? Do you mean that physics is temporally, logically, pragmatically prior to mathematics?
Sometimes you talk as though physics just is the existence of physical laws. Sometimes as though physics is just the ability of creatures to predict the motion of bodies (as in the tiger's leap). At other times as though physics is an orderly investigation into natural phenomena utilizing both inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning.
The notion of 'math' is similarly ambiguous. Is math just deductive science? Is math just the rudimentary ability of humans and other creatures to count? Is math just the existence of abstract objects such as numbers? Is math just quantitative relations between objects in the world?
What counts as an instance of physics, what counts as an instance of mathematics? Or, better, what are the minimal conditions somthing has to satisfy to be an instance of physics or of mathematics?"
so after reading this, let us come up with some mutually acceptable parameters under which to conduct further discussion.
20 Apr 03
Originally posted by pradtfI was after something other than the tautology that successful observation entails the existence of something that is observed. If we are taking physics to be, at the very least, an empirical study of natural phenomenon, what types of concepts must one possess to engage in physics? Presumably, to investigate the natural world one must possess such concepts as 'object', 'persistence', 'change', etc. And with these concepts comes a general picture of how the world is on a very basic, metaphysical level. It involves things that exists through time, that can be effected in various ways, that have certain properties. The very notion of an observation forces on the investigator an ontological commitment to the existence of the thing observed. Thinking of things in these terms is already to be doing metaphysics, and if one thinks of things in radically different terms then one is, again, doing metaphysics. It is the metaphysics that informs what phenomena one takes to be in need of explanation, and also constrains what one takes to be effective means of invesitgation. Metaphysics is logically prior to physics in this respect.
so is this like saying you have to define what makes something observable? just like we are going to define the parameters of of this thread?
if so does not that mean we have to define what observation really is as well?
for instance, animals or even people don't always define observable particulars, right? yet, they do 'observe'.
ah! but you are ...[text shortened]... hat is subjective" is tautology.
???
many questions - appreciate whatever you can answer.
20 Apr 03
Originally posted by bbarrjust wanted to make sure i understood tautology.
I was after something other than the tautology that successful observation entails the existence of something that is observed. Metaphysics is logically prior to physics in this respect.
i see what you are getting at about with metaphysical priority now, i think. if we are to think about physicsy things, we need to establish what 'things' are in the first place (like setting parameters today). the engagement in this action which takes place before the 'thinking about physicsy things', is metaphysics.
(hope i have it right this time)
20 Apr 03
Originally posted by pradtfSort of. After thinking about it I decided that the "hot" molecules traveled faster and would "visit" the cold outer parts of the container and exposed surface area more often, setting up a feedback action based on heat differential. The Real explanation turned out to be far more interesting and involved. After reading it and studying it i found a possible connection to cosmology. Did you know that a photon generated at the core of the sun takes <estimates vary> anywhere from 100,000 to 1 million years to reach the surface? The suns engine could be dead for the past 50,000 years and we won't even know about it for a long, long time! It is because the "hot" center "freezes" more quickly than the outer "cool" regions. <sort of>
😀
hey did you figure you the answer to the water problem yet?
if not here is a clue that may help. what would freeze first - a large amount of water or a small amount of water?
Found this excellent site:
http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/hot_water.html
PS ... i ruled out trying to actually do the experiment. anything frozen in my freezer is eaten by my 4 and 7 year old grandsons. even ice cubes seem to be a treat!😵
20 Apr 03
2 edits
Originally posted by StarValleyWywell done! and thanks for the link.
Sort of. After thinking about it I decided that the "hot" molecules traveled faster and would "visit" the cold outer parts of the container and exposed surface area more often, setting up a feedback action based on heat differentia ...[text shortened]... y 4 and 7 year old grandsons. even ice cubes seem to be a treat!😵
the explanations provided there are very interesting though inconclusive as the authors state because there are so many conditions involved - but that's one of the things that make physics phun!
the primary reason, jearl believes as do the authors, is the evaporation. less water will freeze faster than more water (notice the loss of 16% going from 100 to 0 celsius degrees). the loss of heat as a result of change of state (water evaporating into gas) is pretty hefty as well - to raise 1 g of water from 0 to 100 requires 100 cal of energy, but then to turn that 1g of water into steam requires 540 cal of energy! that's a lot of heat coming out of the water! of course, this is how we regulate our own body temperature - when things start to get too hot, we sweat, and the resulting evaporation takes heat away from our body so our temperature drops.
the convection idea is a very interesting one since water is one of those things that can actually expand while it cools due to the nature of the water molecule. notice that the highest density is at 4C and as it cools further it actually starts to expand (to a point) which is of course why ice floats. that 'insulating layer' may have been the reason acolyte asked the question of whether we want just surface freezing or total freezing.
the supercooling was something i wasn't aware of so that was neat to find out about.
i think your initial explanation of the hot molecules visiting the cold regions is excellent (it was what my wife thought of too). i unfortunately, when i first encountered this problem was too wrapped up in my highschool preconceptions of physics and math (after all, if it wasn't covered in class for marks it doesn't exist), to ever think of so imaginative an idea. rather than pulling out an equation or two, you got cuddly with the molecules themselves through your imagination! notice your explanation is linked to both the evaporation concept and the convection idea.
the connection to cosmology is also very interesting and through linkages like this we do develop a better understanding, i think. your reasoning may not quite apply here though, because the sun's core generates heat through nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium (and some other things). but this fusion can take place only while the fuel is there. so the sun sort of does die a death from the inside out so to speak, but this still doesn't mean that its inards will go cold before its surface. the water in the pan has no such 'generator', so it can't even do the inside 'death' thing. however, those ideas of convection still do apply to a large extent in the sun albeit rather more dramatically.
may be you should pose the question to your grand children. i'm sure their answers would be fascinating. no doubt, they would want to do the experiment and then you can all enjoy some ice cubes together 🙂
21 Apr 03
Originally posted by pradtfso no one has made any suggestions for parameters yet and it is 11:40 pm pst.
so after reading this, let us come up with some mutually acceptable parameters under which to conduct further discussion.
well may be everyone is away for the weekend or something.
anyway, we'll wait one more day and then i'll suggest some or perhaps bbarr will.
22 Apr 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
The suns engine could be dead for the past 50,000 years and we won't even know about it for a long, long time! It is because the "hot" center "freezes" more quickly than the outer "cool" regions
um, we will know, inside a star is an equilibrium between Em radiation pressure outwards and gravitational presure inwards.
once the core runs low on hydrogen the rate of reaction will drop0, thus Em presure will drop breaking eqilibrium. the core will collapse inwards creating a massive release of grav pot en, temp rises rapidly and the outerlayers expand greatly, forming a redgiant and begings helium burning. - id notice that 🙂
reading his posts, does anyone else think pradtf is on drugs?
Sometimes as though physics is just the ability of creatures to predict the motion of bodies (as in the tiger's leap)
nope, thats mechanics.
you still have not said anything to convince me that physics came first, all you have told me is what people discovered and when.
22 Apr 03
Originally posted by nktwildhey nktwild! glad to see i came back. i don't the drug thing - that includes overthecounter stuff like aspirin, cough drops, nicotine, alcohol or caffeine etc.
reading his posts, does anyone else think pradtf is on drugs?
Sometimes as though physics is just the ability of creatures to predict the motion of bodies (as in the tiger's leap)
nope, thats mechanics.
you still have not said anything to convince me that physics came first, all you have told me is what people discovered and when.[/b]
mechanics is physics. in fact, there is a whole branch of physics known as classical mechanics which deals with the motion of bodies. there are also more 'engineering-like' mechanics like statics and dynamics.
i haven't said anything more about physics coming phirst, because we are waiting to set parameters - a la bbarr. do you have any suggestions?
(i do, but i am happy to wait till others make theirs)
23 Apr 03
3 edits
Originally posted by nktwildlooks like it might be just u and i
im happy to hear other peoples suggestions
so. i'm going to suggest the following based on bbarr's earlier ideas. it seems we need to define what physics & math are and from that derive what is an 'instance' of each. and we need to establish what we mean be priority in terms of temporal, logical, pragmatic.
as for the first, i would propose we go to 'original' definitions. (for clarity, things i have quoted are enclosed within ----- and have also given webpage sources if you wanted to look them up)
physics
-----
The modern title, physics, of the course of study upon which the reader is embarking reveals something of the nature of that course. The word is derived from the Latin physica, natural science, which in turn is derived from the Greek plural phusika of the adjective phusikos meaning "of or pertaining to nature." (http://168.229.236.7/~bcurtis/thales.html)
The Merriam "Webster's Third International Dictionary" says the "physics"
comes from Latin and Greek words meaning merely "the study of nature".
-----
therefore, physics is the study of nature, from which it can be said that anything that happens in nature (that can be studied, if u will) is an instance of physics.
math
-----
3. Mathematics is a particular field of study. If you were to ask me to be more specific, I would follow Aristotle and define mathematics as "the science of quantity", with quantity interpreted broadly to include not only numbers but also higher quantities (matrices, etc) and geometrical figures (triangles, manifolds, etc)...
Reference: H. G. Apostle, Aristotle's Philosophy of Mathematics.
This definition of mathematics may seem too old-fashioned, but I believe it can be stretched to cover not only ancient but also modern mathematics, and it has the additional advantage of being well-linked to applications and the rest of human knowledge. (http://www.math.psu.edu/simpson/Hierarchy.html)
-----
it is a good idea i think to adopt this 'older' definition of math, because the newer ones would prove limiting (going back to 600bc only, as discussed in one of my earlier 'on-drugs' postings).
so if math is the study of quantity, then an instance of math could be any attempt to quantify something (ie measure, order, extrapolate or interpolate etc)
if these are acceptable, perhpas u would like to choose the priority: temporal, logical, pragmatic. or if you wish we can go at all three.
if you have any other ideas, please put them forth.
24 Apr 03
i accept your parameters pradtf.
there are only 2 things i hold true at the moment...
we can never be sure of what has happened before or after us.
and
whish ever came first out of maths and physics, the other was not far behind.
while i still believe maths came first my thought on the big bang being the universe's realignment to the introduction of maths is starting to fill more space in my mind.
24 Apr 03
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfI'd say you're wrong on both counts 😉. I'm in it for the long haul if you can stand me, and your definition is archaic and limiting. I'd say that mathematics is the study of enumerating the logical consequences of initial assumptions, and also of developing patterns of order. So mathematics is the field of study concerned with conclusion and order.
[b]looks like it might be just u and i
math
-----
3. Mathematics is a particular field of study. If you were to ask me to be more specific, I would follow Aristotle and define mathematics as "the science of quantity", with quantity inte ...[text shortened]... atrices, etc) and geometrical figures (triangles, manifolds, etc)...