The nature of force

TVF wrote:

What is "magical" is imputing mystical, undefined properties to charge, energy, field, potential, and "mass-influenced space". In order to act on bodies, each of these must consist of tangible, material substance, which we could describe as "very small particles having momentum" as a shorthand for the composition entities that we cannot yet see.

That's what "not being magical" means. -|Tom|-

---

I hope you understand that this does not suffice for a solution to the problem of the efficacy of mechanical causes. Even more in the case of the mind-body problem, unless you are a plain materialist to start with but even them the solution is not clear.

But even then, the contradictions are apparent even though some of you here claim to be in agreement, this is done in the shadows of a not complete understanding of the issues involved. Some of the idealist position expressed cannot be reconsiled with the pure materialistic views.

The claim that something is due to things we cannot see is as bad, or maybe even worse, as the claim that our world is mystical. Obviously, both positions are based on a complete ignorance of the nature of the phenomena.

Every false formula implies a true formula. Ignorance can certainly serve as the foundation of all sorts of theories.

Makis

Some of the most important advancements in the history of science have come about when a kook, theorizing that something unseeable was the cause of a particular effect, turned out to be right.

(If you stop running around with your eyes closed, you'll run into fewer walls. But you're right about one thing - any claim based on complete ignorance is as bad as mysticism.)

As the division increases more and more magic is generated in MM that does not exist in QM. QM has quantifiable particles whereas MM has smaller units of something not yet uncovered, but something that is not even the cause of any of the effects that are being examined. The smaller and smaller parts are composed of smaller parts for ever. That is hard to grasp and very complicated whereas even if magic is at the core of QM it has simple ways to describe process. Why not fix the problem with QM rather than using a new magic?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />As the division increases more and more magic is generated in MM that does not exist in QM. QM has quantifiable particles whereas MM has smaller units of something not yet uncovered, but something that is not even the cause of any of the effects that are being examined. The smaller and smaller parts are composed of smaller parts for ever. That is hard to grasp and very complicated whereas even if magic is at the core of QM it has simple ways to describe process. Why not fix the problem with QM rather than using a new magic?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Jim, "magic" is a red herring. many years ago (and still maybe in some parts of the world) flying machines were considered magical. Not to even mention other simpler things like bicycles.

The problem with MM and TVF is the realist approach to physics and cosmology. In such approaches, as soon as you postulate a certain cause, the problem transcends to another cause and an infinite regression of causes arises. Eventually, even those attempts cannot escape a "final cause" or even 'active principle". Look at the problem: one postulates that gravity is the effect of a material flux of minute particles moving at ftl speeds. Still, the problem of the mechanism of transfer of momentum in substances remains and transcends to these particles. As far as in 550 BC Zeno of Elea showed with simple logical arguments that the notion of Pythagorean perception of space-time leads to impossibilities. All sorts of naive arguments are made to circumvent those simple logical realizations by realists like TVF. As soon as a problem emerges, an elyson is postulated to rectify it, for instance. If that fails at a certain level maybe a nothningson will be postulated to cover up things.

Magic is another world for what we cannot understand as privitive beings looking at reality from inside a cave as Plato said in Phaedo. It is quite possible we may never understand how this world really works. What we can do is come up with models that provide increasing accuracy in predictions with less assumptions. Some realists fail to understand that 4-d spacetime, for instance, is not a statement about the true nature of spacetime but a realization (a posteriori) that such assumption leads to improved predictions about the world. Ontology must be avoided at any expense because it is plain metaphysics. As such, postulations about the existence of minute, undetected, particles to build any theory must be postponed until those particles are detected if ever. Any a priori postulation of undetectable entities that does not lead to a much imporved understanding and predictions over existing theories is indistinguishable from religion.

Makis

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Some of the most important advancements in the history of science have come about when a kook, theorizing that something unseeable was the cause of a particular effect, turned out to be right.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Turned out to be right about what? that the unseeable existed? Or that the effect could be described using the unseeable that still remained such?

Examples?

Mike

Neither, of course. Put aside your strawmen and think about what I actually said. " ...something unseeable was the cause of a particular effect."

You know, some&lt;specific&gt;thing that we couldn't see at the time ended up being the cause of some&lt;other specific&gt;thing that we could see.

There was a time when anyone who believed that a disease could be caused by tiny unseeable "germs" was considered a kook.

===

Of course, this doesn't mean that another kook theorizing about some other unseeable thing is automatically right. The burden of proof rests with those proposing that observed effect B is caused by unseeable thing A.

We are working on it.

If they really are there, we will eventually find them. If they aren't, we won't. But I'm curious - why are you spending so much effort trying to convince us it is a waste of time to look?