On Jan 11, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Arthur Maisel wrote:
> Shane Mage: That is because in scientific usage the only referents for
> those terms are not words descriptive of possible experience but
> abstract
> mathematical equations quite divorced from physical reality and our
> perceptions of it.
>
> Most of that is true, of course. But you merely assert that
> equations are
> divorced from physical reality, something that is certainly
> debatable and
> therefore not as simple and obviously true as the rest.
What divorces a system of equations from physical reality is the presence within it of symbols whose values cannot be gauged from experienced physical reality. As Einstein recognized, his "cosmological constant" represented no physical reality--and changing its name to "dark energy" improves absolutely nothing. A system of abstract mathematical equations *not* divorced from physical reality is one that can be USED by engineers to solve real problems. Or, as has been said, "The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness [Diesseitigkeit] of his thinking, in practice."
Shane Mage
This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures.
Herakleitos of Ephesos