From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Relatives
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:15:41 GMT

Hi Bob,
Nice to hear from you.  How is the Mars Observe going on its silent solitary 
way?  I'm glad we have something less contentious to discuss.  Though some
might think this is inappropriate matter for this forum, I'd have to disagree.
But then I'm sure everyone is used to that from me.

In article <1992Nov9.180759.22715@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
>
>Well John it's beginning to look like nothing is real, everything is
>just a set of rules and relationships.  What we though was real, like
>Bohr's atom turns out to be made up of other, less solid parts, like
>quarks and stuff...and I'm sure this decomposition game isn't over yet.
>So, to me, it looks very much like our perceptions of reality are just
>that, perceptions, there may be no 'real' at all!!!  Great fun!

I'd disagree here.  I take the rules and relationships to be the ways
we represent to ourselves reality given our experience of reality and reflection
upon it.  The difficult is when we begin to objectify these ways of understanding, and mistake them for the objects of study, rather than the ways we apprehend
reality.  IMHO those who relect philosophically upon Modern Science have yet
to grasp this distinction between what is understood and the way our mind
understands.

> 
>So, yes, earth centric, or solar centric are both valid viewpoints.
>When we talk about spacecraft velocities here we always have to indicate
>what 'stationary' body that velocity is in relation to.
>
>However, for practical purposes and using Occam's razor, the mathematics
>for an earth centric planitary system are ludicrous compared to a solar
>centric system.  And there is no scientific reason for favoring the
>earth centric system.   In scientific terms it is much easier to describe
>the solar centric system and use Kepler's laws etc.

To beat my old hobby horse for a while, what you say indicates part of the
reasons I've been trying to argue that modern science does not present us
with the ideal of objectivity.  (I'm not saying that I think you say this;
just using what you said for reflection.)  Occam's razor is very much a 
subjective beard shaver.  It depends upon ideals of explanatory simplicity
that are very much human ideals, and aesthetic considerations.  Does that
make the subjective element irrational?  Only if the subject uses it irrationally and slits his own throat.  There are many modes of human knowing, modern science being a collection of some of them.  But even within modern science, there are
significant differences between the methods and characteristics of those ways
of knowing.  One of the more clear instances of the human element of practicallity in science is the necessity to formulate mathematical theories that can easily be coded into digital computers in such a way that computational time is not
used inneficiently in the CPU.  Even the development of abstract mathematics
was driven in important respects by these very human needs, e.g. the Calculus
as Netwon developed it and as Leibniz developed, as well as the various 
different sorts of transformations, Fourier, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, etc. as
means for simplifying computation.  I'm sure you are more than used to this
in the field you are in where orbits have to be very precise, and much 
computer computation is expended to keep the orbitals on track.

>So if the universe is to have 'real' meaning then I would think that the
>most organized, easiest to explain description would be the appropriate
>one to use, and therefore that Galileo was 'more right' than those who
>held earth centric views.  Newton was 'more right' than those before him,
>and Einstein 'more right' than Newton, and probably Hawking more right
>than Einstein.  The beat goes on, as they say. 

I would say more right with respect to the particular interests they had.

>
>It's a spectacular universe anyway you look at it though!!

DAMN STRAIGHT, OR ELLIPTICAL, OR PARABOLIC, OR HYPERBOLIC, whichever 
mathematical metaphor you find more appealing! (:->) 

Peace,
John 'Amateur disputant' O'Callaghan