Re: Thoughts on causation

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

My own speculation below leads to  a non-physics question.
I will formulate it in capital letters at the end.

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> ... I think that measuring a distance is REAL as long as I have
> a tape or yardstick, (or a protractor, if triangulation is involved).
> These instruments are so simple that nobody questions the
> results, except for the accuracy. Naturally, the brain and retina
> are involved. We do not understand everything about these
> biological components but we, in physics, are not bothered
> by this. Using brains and retinas does not mean that we are
> imagining things. We believe measurements are REAL.
>
> Sometimes a sophisticated set up, such as an interferometer,
> is used, instead of a simple tape or ruler. Or a spectrometer
> to measure the magnitude of red shift. Or an atomic clock
> instead of a simple pendulum. We do not understand our
> brains and retinas but we do understand how the added
> components work.
>
> Suppose I hire a laboratory assistant who follows instructions
> without understanding optical components. To him optical
> components are like retina and brain. He believes that
> counting fringes, for example, is a REAL measurement of
> distance. ...

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND MY
ASSISTANT? FOR ME IT IS ONLY BRAIN + RETINA
THAT ARE NOT UNDERSTOOD, FOR HIM IT IS NOT
ONLY BRAIN + RETINA BUT ALSO THE OPTICAL
COMPONENT.

BOTH OF US BELIEVE THAT WE ARE PERFORMING
REAL MEASUREMENTS. EACH OF HAS TO ACCEPT
THAT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING IN
WHAT IS HAPPENING. WHY SHOULD THE NUMBER
OF COMPONENTS WHICH WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND
BE SIGNIFICANT?
Ludwik Kowalski