Re: Physics is a human construct

["Bob Sciamanda" <trebor@velocity.net>]

The revolutionary approach (of Boyle et al) to which I refer was much
more than just the use of mathematics and the measurement of "natural"
quantities (orbital shapes, velocities, etc.)  The revolution consisted
in freely CREATING new instruments which generate CORRELATED numbers.
When this search proves successful, the new quantities are DEFINED as
useful "properties" of the system under observation and become
participants in humanly created mathematical models.  Conceptual models
may then follow and endow these quantities with some physical meaning.

Your comments concentrate on testing of the model;  I refer more to the
very conception of the model.  Before the "Boyle revolution" philosophers
would directly seek a conceptual model in terms of "ordinary world"
QUALITIES.  The revolutionary "Boyle" idea was to seek the design of
instruments which would generate useful numbers when allowed to
"interact" with the system under study; the conceptual model would then
be driven by the new knowledge in the empirical mathematical model.

Thus, the scientific vocabulary of "system properties" exploded from the
few "natural" qualities (thought of as inherent and objective) to the
limitless possibilities of all conceivable measuring
instruments/procedures.

Re: your math friend's comment:  When one says that mathematics is a
human construct he does not thereby imply that we can change the list of
prime numbers!  Mathematics, like physics, is a human description of
reality.  It is the description (ie. Mathematics or Physics) which is
human, not the reality being described.  (I think this is where I depart
from the postmodernist school,  although I can never stay awake long
enough to understand such needlessly complicated philosophic ramblings.)

The distinction you make in your last paragraph is the distinction I make
between mathematical and conceptual models.  For more of my apropos
ramblings go to Quantum, Nov/Dec 1996, "A Prelude to the Study of
Physics" - also reproduced on line at http://www.velocity.net/~trebor .

Bob Sciamanda
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (ret)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Karshner <karshner@STMARYTX.EDU>
To: phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu <phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu>
Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Physics is a human construct


> > I think this began with Boyle, et al, in the 1600's.  Prior to this,
such a
> > mode of understanding was not even a part of human thinking.  Since
then it has
> > become the essential feature of every human invention which goes by the
> > name of quantitative science (and quantitative recreation, etc.).
>
> Bob,
>        Although I agree with your approach, I would push quantitative
> thinking as a test of "validity" back to at least Hipparchus. In the
Middle
> Ages and before, the Ptolemaic system with it demand of mathematical
> precision and the Aristotelian system with its thoroughness and
simplicity
> coexisted. It is Keplier's demand that the paths of the planets fit the
> theory that establishes the quantitative approach as the one to be
accepted.
> If there is one thing that sets physics apart from the other sciences,
it is
> the ease with which Nature seems to fit the numbers (i.e. the quantities
or
> things that we measure). If only there was such a singular measure of
learning.
>        A Mathematician friend of mine would argue that mathematics is
not a
> human construct since say a prime number is a prime number no matter
which
> system of mathematics it is found in. I have always like his proposal to
> communicate with other civilizations (al. a. SETI) by sending a sequence
of
> primes like, two, three, five, eleven, thirteen, seventeen, and
nineteen,
> over and over again,  with the obvious answer "seven stupid."
>        One of the constant tensions in physics has been between the
> Newtonian approach that if the laws describe nature that is all that is
> necessary, and the Cartesian approach that looked for mechanisms to
explain
> physical laws. I think constructionist approach is the latter approach
to
> physics and may as well be fundamental as to how we learn things. I
taught
> optics last term and was struck by how many different approaches are
used to
> describe light - from rays, through Huygen's wave, E-M waves to quantum
> electrodynamics. We still uses them all to describe light under
different
> conditions.
>
> Gary
> Gary Karshner
>
> St. Mary's University
> San Antonio, Texas
> KARSHNER@STMARYTX.EDU