From: tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: invention of time
Date: 6 Sep 92 21:49:37 GMT
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.

In article <snodgras.715630298@crash> snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass) writes:
<In <1992Sep3.070054.17521@galois.mit.edu> tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
<>everyone will agree that another point of view MIGHT solve all
<>the problems of the world. But this surely doesn't mean that we
<>should shift points of view all the time.  Do you agree?  If so,
<>then you are basically agreeing with vincent, who is arguing that
<>a shift in one's point of view needs to be justified.
<
<       Mr. Vincent said "How could QM be wrong, given it's staggering
<success?" Again: Staggering relative to what? The paradigm that
<never was?

Here is what vincent said:
<       As far as working physicists are  concerned, don't fix it
<if it ain't broke. It is well understood that the present model
<of the universe is incomplete, but that doesn't prevent it from
<providing a staggering amount of practical, useful results. 20th
<century technology springs directly from 20th century physics.

Note that he does not say that QM cannot be wrong.  It could very well be
"wrong" in the sense that Newton's mechanics is "wrong."  Why are you
focusing on the word "staggering"?  Replace "staggering" with "small" and
the point remains the same: don't fix it if it ain't broke.

<       Secondly, one does not need justification to bring up
<some of the deeper questions to be asked about the new physics.

One may not need justification to BRING UP the questions.  But to ACCEPT
a new answer does.

<Time dilation is assigning geometrical cause to physical events.

No.  Time dilation is a name for certain equations that scientists use for
the purposes of control.  Compare the inverse square law of gravity.

<...it is a philosophical decision to accept
<a geometrical cause of a physical event.

Yes.  However, one can employ the equations of time dilation without
accepting this interpretation of them.

<        My remark above regarding frameworks vs. properties of matter
<is terminated by a question mark. But let's treat it as an alternative
<theory. Can it be shown to be incorrect? Or is the new physics simply
<ignoring it, for various non-scientific reasons? Expediency for example.

People ignore your theory because it offers no promise of control.
Furthermore it is not well enough formulated to be testable experimentally.
Formulate it carefully, designing experiments where relativity and your
theory predict different results, and people will sit up and take notice.

<      A good new theory would do at least two additional things as well.

First things first.  Show that it has greater predictive power than
relativity first, and later worry about the icing on the cake.
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech