Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] The "why" questions



On 11/29/2010 05:58 PM, ludwik kowalski wrote:

If we accept that causality belong to our models, rather than to reality

But I don't accept any such thing.

Both models are acceptable but one of them is better (more desirable in
a particular context) than another. We should argue about which model is
better and not about which model is absolutely RIGHT or
absolutely WRONG. Do you agree?

I disagree.

Sometimes there is no "right" and "wrong" ... but sometimes
there is. And if for some reason you want to avoid those
terms, let me use other terms: let me speak in terms of
life and death.

This is not an abstraction. This is not some word-game played
by philosophers in some ivory tower. People's lives depend on
understanding cause-and-effect. Life and death are "operationally
definable". Life and death are "conclusively testable".

John Snow had a clear understanding of cause-and-effect.
Joel Schwartz has a clear understanding of cause-and-effect.

If you say that force causes acceleration, you don't understand.
If you say it doesn't matter much, you don't understand.