sci.physics.electromag

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Benj wrote:

> "Vince Morgan" wrote:
>
>> I think math is a tool of measurement, and that measurement can at times
>> offer insight and implications. But, my grasp of math is very poor and I
>> would never beleive it to be more "real" that "reality". Far from it. You
>> should know that from previous posts. I don't value math of reality one
>> tiny iota.
>> If ever I see any any, I mean "any" diveregence from accurate physical
>> measurement then math looses instantly, in fact I consider any other
>> position a form of insanity to be honest..

In a sense, yes, but in another sense, not at all. Consider that out of
our various theories of physics, there's, perhaps, at the most one that
might possibly be "correct" in any fundamental sense (general relativity,
and anybody working on quantum gravity will say it isn't the "final"
theory).

Although we know that classical electrodynamics is only an approximate
theory, this shouldn't automatically mean that entities that appear in
the theory, for example, electromagnetic fields, have no relationship to
relationship to reality. In particular, the electromagnetic fields are
effectively a wavefunction for the quantum theory. One must be careful
about just how broken the maths is.

> TImo is the "true believer" here. I, like you,
> say that when math doesn't EXACTLY fit "reality" then it can't be
> considered to be "reality"! And I go further. I say how can you
> "know" that math "fits reality" in EVERY CASE? You'd have to be God
> to make that kind of assertion! Thus Timo is really arguing that math
> is God! As for me, it just all sounds a bit like arguments whether
> the "trinity" is three Gods in One or One God in Three!

So, you're an arsehole as well as being dishonest! I said nothing along
those lines, you lying pice of shit. I said that, personally, I think that
EM fields are real, but that the only definitely correct stance is
agnosticism - you merely (and dogmatically) denied the "existence" of
fields. Given the option of rational discussion, you just spewed out
strawmen, lies, and avoidance of the issue.

When it comes down to the reality of maths, _you_ were the one who claimed
that how terms in equations are arranged affects the meaning, and that
interpretations of the meaning of terms somehow affects the mathematical
derivation of one equation from others.

_You_ are the one who has refused to discuss any of the substance of the
argument, and the one who resorted to lying, hypocrisy, and general
arsehole-ness. If that's your choice (presumably you're seeking some kind
of "usenet points", not a discussion of physics or the philosophy of
physics), so be it, but I don't see why I should let you spray your shit
on other branches of the thread without comment.

Still, your behaviour is hardly surprising, given your posting history.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html