sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 8, 11:05 pm, "Vince Morgan"
wrote:

> Kepler's discoveries were my first appreciation of the power of mathematics.
> How could one ever "see" these things without them. Actually, if one were
> able to position oneself in space far above the solar system and lived for
> an extraordinarily long time, and had an attention span of similar
> proportions, then that one "could" actually "see" what he observed
> mathematically.

No one said that mathematics as a model of reality was not useful. No
one said that it did not provide insight even valid predictions of
phenomena that might not otherwise be obvious. And it's great that
Kepler's mathematics gave you insight into the operations of the solar
system. However, the problem we are struggling with here is the
question if Kepler's analytical geometry actually IS the solar system!
Does it have a reality GREATER than the sun and the planets? Is that
mathematical model somehow MORE real than what we see through our
telescopes. Good choice, because we can answer that one! No it is
not. In fact it's not even correct! The stability of the multibody
system of the solar system remains an unsolved problem TO THIS DAY!
Yet, all of physics goes about yaking about the emperor's new clothes
pretending that this is all solved and water over the dam! Sorry,
this is what happens when you start thinking your models have more
reality than what you observe through your telescope!

> A surgeon cares little about the fact that the tissue he slices, and the
> scalpel he uses, are 99.99999% quantum foam. To him this is little more
> than a curiosity with little or no relevance to the skills that he is
> required to have. Are his perceptions of tissue less "real" that those of a
> physicist in this regard?

Depends. Does the "open" structure of his scalpel impinge upon his
work? Probably not. Everybody knows that locally the earth sure
"seems" flat! All this talk about the earth being round is probably
no more than a curiosity to anyone who is just sailing around a lake
or cruising around the neighborhood. But does the "correct"
philosophy ever impinge upon everyday commerce? You bet it does! It's
simply a matter of whether that part of reality is significant to the
things YOU are trying to do.

> Perhaps "real" is what needs more definition here. Perhaps contextual
> reality is , if accurate and correctly applied, perfectly valid. What a
> blind mans sees is not what sighted people see, but if his skills are well
> developed are his visualizations (so to speak) any less valid? Is one
> method of seeing "what is" less valid than another? Perhaps the ultimate
> reality is the overlaying of all these "images", as long as all those
> "images" are derived accurately.

Yes, this is a valid point. Definitions of "real" are important as are
all precise definitions in science. However, generally speaking,
science views experiment as the definition of reality. Philosophy
clearly questions those experiments and can propose new experiments to
extend the testing beyond our senses. But in the end it is not
mathematical models that determine what we regard as reality but hard
measured data. Without experimental data all science is just
speculation. Speculation COULD coincide with "reality" but how would
you know if it did? If experimentalists, for example, tell you that
"we've been unable to ever find a case of a changing E field creating
an H field in free space", it's clear you need to re-think your
speculation!

I just can't seem to shut up on this topic, can I?