Measure and Quantity and Rand's notion of mathematics

[John Dailey]

~ Relativity was not a 'fix', true, like some mathematical scotch-tape-cum-bubble-gum patch-up job; it was an overhaul of the ideological perspective and, separately, though simultaneously (sorry Al!), it was also a more basic mathematical identification of the overhaul showing an encompassing of the previously established math, thereby showing the latter's 'special case' derivationalness from it, ergo, 'explaining' what was merely 'described.'

~ If Classical Physics was 'wrong', Relativity, if 'right', has no buisness implying it...even as a 'special case.' CP was wrong only in over-generalizing...in its ideology.

LLAP

J:D

Edited April 21, 2008 by John Dailey

[tjohnson]

~ Relativity was not a 'fix', true, like some mathematical scotch-tape-cum-bubble-gum patch-up job; it was an overhaul of the ideological perspective and, separately, though simultaneously (sorry Al!), it was also a more basic mathematical identification of the overhaul showing an encompassing of the previously established math, thereby showing the latter's 'special case' derivationalness from it, ergo, 'explaining' what was merely 'described.'

~ If Classical Physics was 'wrong', Relativity, if 'right', has no buisness implying it...even as a 'special case.' CP was wrong only in over-generalizing...in its ideology.

LLAP

J:D

Very well put JD. This shows the inappropriateness of 2-valued, right/wrong, true/false thinking outside of pure mathematics.

[John Dailey]

~ Apparently I was unclear in my presented view. To clarify, CP was 'right' in its (Newton's, actually) mathematical description of known astrophysical phenomena. However, CP was 'wrong' in its cosmological/scientific-ideological 'world-view' of the source of such phenomena. Al's Relativity encompassed the correctness of the 1st by correcting the over-generalizing of the second (which allowed only description but not explanation), interestingly as well, raising the math-applications from mere astrophysics to Cosmology.

~ In short, as 2-valued logic stresses about keeping contexts clear, contradictions are talking about 'within the same respect.' CP was correct, in ONE 'respect'...and simultaneously wrong in the OTHER 'respect.'

LLAP

J:D

[BaalChatzaf]

~ If Classical Physics was 'wrong', Relativity, if 'right', has no buisness implying it...even as a 'special case.' CP was wrong only in over-generalizing...in its ideology.

LLAP

J:D

Classical physics is wrong in several respects, not the least of which was to assume time (in particular simultaneity) is absolute. It was also incorrect in assuming that energy could assume any value and that angular momentum could be made arbitrarily small. Energy is quantized. Angular momentum is quantized.

There is no ideology in scientific theories. Perhaps metaphysics, but not ideology.

There is no need to put quotes around the word wrong. Classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics cannot correctly describe subatomic processes. In classical electrodynamics, moving electrons would radiate away their energy in something like 10^-11 seconds and atoms would collapse. But this does not happen.

None of this implies classical physics has no uses. For a large class of problems classical physics is close enough to be useful. It is a good heuristic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Yes, I understand. It was guilty of over-generalization. The law of addition of velocities, for example, was verified empirically and it was natural to generalize this to velocities of light particles - natural maybe, but not correct!

[John Dailey]

GS:

~ Correct . CP (cosmologically, anyways) worked from an entrenched 'world-view' of things about Time and Space which fit (or, were falsely induced [aka: over-generalized] from?) apparent phenomena. It ended up being able to 'describe' appearances (akin to the prob of planets' orbits re Copernicus and then Kepler), but, not 'explain' them on a coherent foundation. The math was only 'descriptive'.

~ Then Al came along and wrote about space and time being tied together, and then both being 'warped' according to the density of matter, and Light having a 'speed'/velocity which is constant wherever measured by whomever in whatever motion situations...and used math to describe THAT, using THAT as an 'explanation' (if one accepts it ) for all else. --- '2-valued-logic'ally speaking: he's correct...as was Newton with his 'encompassing'...description.

LLAP

J:D

Edited April 26, 2008 by John Dailey