Re: modern physics

[John M <***>]

Judith:
I subscribe to your formulation in this post - with a remark (would not be
me if I had'nt one):
I don't call physics "flawed", I call it a remnant of previous views and
explanations based on a level of the epistemic cognitive inventory of
earlier times with less information. What you called "the original
principles". The formalism has been set (called: "physics") and continually
"improved" and "improved" according to the enrichment which epistemology
provided during the centuries.
It still stayed the original framework: observe (measure?) percepts and
equate them with already known (limited) models, ie. their quantitative
(incomplete) representations within the formalism.
In forms of lab- or thought-experiments, all explained in (equational) math.
on the models. Due to the ingenuity of many physicists over the centuries,
fantastic "matches" have been shown in  the incredible and practically
applicable "edifice of the world" represented in "physics".
The glossary is getting mended and mended (not a new one created). (Eg.:
entropy).

Science cannot take the 'radical' step within its establishment, although
there are advanced minds working on 'brand new' ideas. Alas, most of them
still with the old (brainwashed) formalistic inhibitions in the back of
their 'advanced' minds. With some exceptions, of course.

Physics (the historical noumenon) is too good to be discarded.
It applies the "natural language" of mathematics and is applied in the other
branches of 'science'. "Application" is suspect to be just a "flawed"
simulation of what is applied into another model.
Maybe this brings me back to RR's expression.

Also: I thank you for your rather lengthy RR-quote in your other post about
the 'concept' topics.

John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: modern physics


> All of which doesn't change the fact that, at its root, physics is still
> based on the original principles, which are what my father said were
flawed.
> They were flawed by the limited perceptions and the conclusions made based
> on those perceptions.
>
> Judith
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Howard Pattee" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [ROSEN] modern physics
> Skipped