|
|
Posted by Ken Maltby on 11/07/05 05:40
"Alpha" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:11mt21t67c8dc87@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:5cadnRO6NZkk6PPeRVn-uA@giganews.com...
>>
>>> The question is to what extent are we *imposing* order, rather than
>>> discovering it. I would suggest we are doing a lot of invention rather
>>> than reading/discovering some set of natural laws (a concept I reject
>>> entirely).
>>
>> So, Newton got that lump on his head because he just
>> happened to be lying under an apple tree, when he
>> "invented" gravity? You must be very popular with the
>> MTV Generation.
>>
>> LOL;
>> Ken
>>
>>
>
> What do you think gravity is? It is an invented concept connected to
> reliable observations, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Show me some gravitons LOL
>
So we are again in the land of the lawyer's use of terms.
To most of us "Gravity" is the force that caused the apple
to fall. To you "gravity" is the "invented concept" of the
mathematician who got bopped on the head. If the "inventor"
were to have it wrong, then gravity is wrong, an invalid
concept.
You know if you really believed that then, you should be
more inclined to believe there is a "Natural Law" out there
to be discovered. If your "concept inventor" were to find
the proper means to observe how it works.
The observable phenomena have "Natural" as opposed
to meta-physical/super-natural or subjective explanations.
While I can agree that a particular mathematical model of
the unobservable forces that create an observable event,
may be totally wrong, ( as in the "Global Warming" by
virtue of human activity models) that does not mean that
there is a un-natural explanation that can't be set to
numerical description.
Luck;
Ken
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|