Re: Operational Definitions

["Van E. Neie" <ven@physics.purdue.edu>]

> > that, over its long history, it was able to separate the physics from our
> > feelings, to make objective models rather than egocentric models, and to
> > realize that we seek understanding of a universe which we assume
> > represents an OBJECTIVE REALITY, not a subjective impression, and which

	Who is "we"?  Not everyone believes that the world exists independent
of our perception of it.  John Wheeler even speaks seriously about a concept
called the "participatory universe," meaning, as I recall, that the universe
is "as it is" partly as a result of our observing it.

It might be interesting to speculate about whether we would ever have
developed the concept of temperature had it not been for our sensing of it.

Consider this:  Everything we "see, hear, feel, taste, think about, etc.",
ultimately is processed some way in the brain.  So as Kant(?) once said:
The entire universe exists as a product of our consciousness."

Definitions are useful insofar as they help us maximally in understanding
our universe.  And because different folks believe one definition helps that
along better than another, there will always be debates and a need for a
standards group to arbitrate.

(Just thought I would "weigh in" on this issue, hoping that it won't result
in "mass" confusion.)

Stay cool (or maintain a moderate level of average random thermal kinetic
energy)!

Van



>


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Van E. Neie                                      ven@physics.purdue.edu
Purdue University                                
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------