[Aiwendil]

Lyta Underhill wrote:

But I would also say that these same laws are human constructs derived to explain a universe that always manages to stay several steps ahead of the theorists, just as the tiny bugs of the universe seem to stay several steps ahead of the latest antimicrobial drugs.

This sounds a bit like constructivism (the view that science is just a societal/cultural phenomenon like any other, and that scientific theories are just human inventions). But I'm not sure whether you're really advocating a constructivist position or not. Certainly it may seem like the universe is always staying a step ahead of science, but surely it's not literally true that the universe is actually changing its fundamental laws as we discover them. There's a huge difference between saying that the fundamental laws of physics are complicated and saying that there are no fundamental laws of physics.

the explanation of newer physics concepts to the layman is beginning to sound more and more like a spiritual exercise than a mathematical one.

I know what you mean; but it's important to remember that this is only an appearance. The actual scientific theories in question are still purely mathematical. It's just that they are so complex and convoluted that in popular books, their results must be reduced to bald statements that are bound to sound mystical.

Most people believe they will be satisfied when a certain desire is met, which is a dangerous thing to assume, since desire appears addictive and ultimately never satisfiable.

All desires? What about the desire to be moral? Surely that's satisfiable. What about the desire to write a symphony? Surely that's satisfiable. What about the desire to quench one's thirst?

Your meaning, presumably, was that immoral desires are never satisifed. But I don't see any reason to think this is always true.

Lush wrote:

What I meant is that I find it hilarious when people look down upon others for doing stuff one might consider immoral (coke, cute little freshmen, whatever floats your boat) when they often experience the very same urges.

Ah. I misunderstood you.

And as for physics: I've got a few friends over at the Duke Physics Dept., and we'll get together some nights and talk, and they will say to me that there are moments when they have no idea what on earth it is that they are studying and ultimately it does seem as if physics and its purpose will never be fully explained either.

But the great complexity of physics should not be mistaken for some kind of foundational philosophical problem. I know I sometimes feel overwhelmed and bewildered by such things as quantum physics (or even by classical electromagnetism). And it is certainly true that quantum mechanics (and to a lesser degree, relativity) is radically counter-intuitive. But none of this undermines the mathematical foundations of physics.

As for not knowing the purpose of physics: this is surely a case of making a question more complicated than it really is. The purpose of physics is to predict the positions of particles at arbitrary times. And that purpose has not changed since the invention of mathematical physics.

Sorry for going on about this rahter tangential topic.

[ October 28, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]