Re: convert light into energy

[Joseph Bellina <jbellina@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

I'm jumping into this late as usual, and perhaps this has been said, but
such a position, the instrumentalist one, as I see it, presents problems
if one wants to make any claims about reality...in this model, what is
real, and what is instrument for understanding?  On what basis do you
justify such a conceptual cut?

cheers

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, brian whatcott wrote:

> People who adopt the approach that Ludwik espouses - that
> physical constructs are all essentially 'models' subject to
> revision, find it liberating - and find it somewhat easier
> to escape the dominant paradigm onto the next, IMO.
>
> Brian
>
> At 22:30 2/2/00 -0500, Ludwik wrote:
> > I am comfortable with thinking that mass, and charge,
> > and strangeness, etc. are attributes rather than things.
> ....
> > What is the purpose of making some attributes more
> > real, or less real, than others? I see no clear pedagogical
> > advantages, or disadvantages, in emphasizing such
> > nuances. Any measurable characteristic of an object is
> > an attribute, not the object, in classical physics.
> > Ludwik Kowalski
> >
> > Leigh Palmer wrote:
> >
> > > Whoa! I think you go too far. While "mass" may not
> > > be real, matter is quintessentially material, and mass is
> > > pretty close to synonymous with matter - quantity of
> > > matter, I'll grant you - but saying mass isn't real is of
> > > no help in explaining the world to students; it is at best
> > > a semantic point.
> brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
> Altus OK