Weinberg and Hawking are confusing "mind" with "order=amr"
observable magnetudes alone. It is the theory which decides what we
can observe.
Albert Einstein, from J.Bernstein,
"The Secrets of the Old Ones, II"
Weinberg says:
"As a physicist I perceive scientific explanations and laws as
things that are what they are and cannot be made up as I go along,
so my relation to these laws is not so different from my relation
to my chair, and I therefore accord the laws of nature the honor
of being real....This impression is reinforced when it turns out
that some law of nature is not what we thought it was, an
experience similar to finding that a chair is not in place when one
sits down."
According to this account, Steven Weinberg seems to be forgetting
that the concept "chair" does not play a similar role to the
concept of "law" that is a concept of "law of nature" in
language...However, he qoutes from L.Wittgenstein that "at the
basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that
the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural
phenomena."...
Weinberg also seems to forget how those so called laws of
nature are developed in language of physics. I had to remind
Weinberg that without being part of a physical theory the laws
he is talking about are no-more laws of nature...same as
a "fact" is NOT a physical fact unless it is explained
according to a theory of physics...I think Wittgenstein is
right by pointing out that physicists are creating
an illusion in language by refering to the laws of
physics now as being real...
Yeah, they are real, as real as an electron is :->
It seems that we have more illusionists than physicists
in our universities :-> Hawking, now Weinberg, when they cannot
make physics they switch to create illusions :->
Weinberg p 74
..there were several suggestions of how the anomaly
in the motion of Mercury could be explained within
Newtonian theory. One possibility that was being
taken seriously at the beginning of this century
was that there might be some kind of matter between
Mercury an the sun that causes a slight perturbation
to the sun's grvitational field. There is nothing in
any single disagreement between theory and experiment
that stands up and waves a flag and says, 'I am an
important anomaly.' There was no sure way that a
scientist looking critically at the data in the letter
part of the 19th or the first decade of the 20th
century could have concluded that there was anything
important about any of these solar system anomalies.
It took theory (Einstein's theory of gravitation)
to explain which were the important observation.
Efendiler,
simdi bu hikayeye gore where is the _fact_?
For me it is either in the explanations within
Newton's theory or Einstein's...of course
the man in the street can also explain it
in ordinary language, but should a physicist
listen to him ? No, because if his
language had been clearer than physicist's
theories, then physicist wouldn't bother
to set up theories in the first place.
Weinberg ve Hawking gibi fizikciler fizigi
birakip felsefe yapmaya basladimi, zirvalamaya da
basliyorlar. Cunku bunlara gore fizik teorileri
Allah'in vahiylerine denktir. Bunlara teorileriyle
vahiyler arasindaki farki gosterdin mi nevirleri
donuyor. Halbu ki lisandaki olay gayet basit...
Allah Kitabini dilde fizik teorisi gibi bir fonksiyon
gorsun diye vahyetmedi...teorik fizikciler de
fizik teorilerini vahiy yerine gecsin diye icat
etmediler.
Weinberg'in kitabina bakarsan teori vahiy yerine
is gormektedir :-)
Benim yaptigim elestiriyle Popper'in bilimsel
gorusu arasinda bir benzerlik de goremiyorum.
Soyle ki;
Popper'e gore falsify edilemiyen teori bilimsel teori
olamaz. Ben boyle bir iddiada bulunmuyorum. Ben sadece
ve sadece bilimsel aciklamalarin bir teoriye gore
yapilmasi o bilimsel aciklamalari anlamli kilar diyorum.
Bir teoriye gore yapilmayan aciklamalarla amiyane
aciklamalar arasinda bir fark gormuyorum. Bunlar da
aciklamadir fakat bilimsel midir degil midir. Tabi burada
teorinin ne oldugunu tarif etmedim. Ama gerekirse bunu da
acikliga kavusturabilirim..boyle bir yaklasimi simdilik
fizik bilimi icin uyguluyorum. Zaten soz kunusu da
fizikti.
Iste efendiler birinin "Allah'in emri hakkdir" demesi
ne kadar hakli/haksiz ise bu Weinberg'in "Laws of Nature are
real" demeside o kadar hakli/haksiz dir :-)
Oyle onune gelenin "hak"'tan "gercek"'ten edecegi
sozlere kulak verecek olsaydim iyice dagitmis olurdum :-)
***
Steven Weinberg 1993, Dreams of a final theory, p 193-194
"If there were anything we could discover in nature that would give
us some special insight into the handiwork of God, it would have to
be the final laws of nature. Knowing these laws, we would have in
our possession the book of rules that governs stars and stones and
everything else. So it is natural that Stephen Hawking should refer
to the laws of nature as 'the mind of God'. Another physicist,
Charles Misner, used similar language in comparing the perspectives
of physics and chemistry: 'The organic chemist, in answer to the
question, "Why are there ninety-two elements, and when were they
produced ?" may say "The man in the next office knows that. "But
the physicist, being asked, "Why is the universe built to follow
certain physical laws and not others?" may well reply, "God
knows."'"
I think Weinberg and Hawking are confusing "mind" with "order=amr"
:
041.012 ...and He made it the seven heavens in two days and loaded
in each heaven its AMR (command-set/order)
007.054 The sun, the moon and the stars are all function
(keep their equilibrium state) with His AMR
(command-set/order)..
030.025 ...the heaven and the earth remain in place in with
His AMR (command-set/order)..
014.033 ...made the sun and the moon subservient to you.
016.012 ...the sun, the moon and the stars are function with
His AMR. Indeed, in this there are signs for a nation
who use intellect.
031.020 Do you not see that Allah made whatever is in the heavens
and the earth subservient to you...
014.032, 022.065,045.012 ...made the ships, rivers, the sea
subservient to you with His AMR (comman-set/order)...
032.005 He directs the AMR from the heaven to the earth, and it
ascends
to Him in a day, the length of which in your count is a
thousand years...
065.001 ...Allah may bring another AMR after this AMR...
012.021 ...Allah has power over His AMR...
However, Weinberg keeps on preaching on p 195 :
"..If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God
in a lump of coal. But if words are to have any value to us, we
ought to respect the way that have been used historically, and we
ought especially to preserve distinctions that prevent the meanings
of words from merging with the meanings of other words."
..and getting them corrupted, if I may say so I say :->
and Weinberg goes on speaking only for himself:
"In this spirit, it seems to me that the word 'God' is to be of any
use, it should be taken to mean an interested God, a creator and
lawgiver who has established not only the laws of nature and
universe but also standards of good and evil....that it is
approprate for us to worship."
Weinberg says:
"The laws of nature also take the same form wherever our
laboratories are located; it makes no difference to our
results wherever we do our experiments in Texas or
Switzerland or on some planet on the other side of the
galaxy. The laws of nature takes the same form however
we set our clocks; it makes no difference whether we date
events from the Hegira or the birth of Christ or the
beginning of the universe. This does not mean that
nothing changes with time or that Texas is just the same
as Switzerland, only that the laws discovered at different
times and in different places are the same."
Dreams of a Final Theory, 1993, p 109.
Now, you people tell me what is the difference between
what Weinberg, the physicist says and a Rabbi X says:
"The laws of G-d also take the same form wherever our
lives takes place; it makes no difference to our
judgements wherever we practice our way of life in Texas or
Switzerland or on some planet on the other side of the
galaxy. The laws of G-d takes the same form however
we set our clocks; it makes no difference whether we date
events from the Hegira or the birth of Christ or the
beginning of the universe. This does not mean that
nothing changes with time or that Texas is just the same
as Switzerland, only that the laws revealed at different
times and in different places are the same. And these
are the laws which we observe in the name of G-d."
Dreams of a Final Judgement, 1993, p 109.
:-> Who's that, I wanna bust that Fundamentalist !
:-> Uyan Lan Hakan, here is one for you !
***
Dreams of A Final Theory, Weinberg, 1993, p 142
"What after all does it mean to observe anything? ...Kaufmann did
not even observe the deflection of cathode rays in a given magnetic
field; he measured the position of a luminous spot on the
downstream side of the vacuum tube when wires were wound a certain number of
times around a piece of iron near the tube and connected to a
certain electric battery and used accepted theory to interpret this in
terms of ray trajectories and magnetic fields. Very strictly speaking, he
did not even do that: he experienced certain visual and tactile
sensations that he interpreted in terms of luminous spots and wires
and batteries. It has become a commonplace among historians of
science that observation can never be freed of theory."
ibid p 146
"...to pull apart a particle known as a meson that consists of a
quark and an antiquark, then the force needed increases as the quark and
antiquark are pulled farther apart, and eventually you have to put
so much energy into the effort that there is enough energy
available to create a new quark-antiquark pair. An antiquark then pops out
of the vacuum and joins itself to the original antiquark, so that
instead of having a free quark and antiquark you simply have two
quark-antiquark pairs - that is, two mesons. The metaphor has often
been used that this is like trying to pull apart two ends of a
piece of string: you can pull and pull, and eventually, if you put
enough energy into the effort, the string breaks, but you do not
find yourself with two isolated ends of the original piece of
string; what you will have are two pieces of string, each of which has two
ends. The idea that quarks and gluons can in principle never be
observed in isolation has become part of the accepted wisdom of
modern elementary particle physics, but it does not stop us from
describing neutrons and protons and mesons as composed of quarks..
The quark theory was only one step in a continuing process of
reformulation of physical theory in terms that are more and more
fundamental and at the same time farther and farther from everyday
experience. How can we hope to make a theory based on observables
when no aspect of our experience - perhaps not even space and time
-
appears at the most fundamental level of our theories ? It seems to
me unlikely that the positivist attitude will be of much help in
the future."
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder