From: nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be   
      
   On Saturday, 7 July 2018 01:38:32 UTC+2, Tom Roberts  wrote:   
   >   
   > It OUGHT to be clear that NOTHING we observe can be inconsistent with   
   > the laws of physics -- we and any physical process we observe are   
   > necessarily constrained by those laws. I did not "set down a rule" that   
   > is not already contained in the phrase "laws of physics".   
      
   I would like to comment on this in a rather 'open' sense.   
   First of all identical processes (experiments) have identical descriptions.   
   Different processes have different descriptions.   
   Almost identical processes have almost identical descriptions. The   
   differences in these descriptions we call the parameters of the processes.   
   That all seems simple but the reality is more complex.   
   The first problem is we humans. We humans write the descriptions based   
   on our observations.   
   Consider a train which travels in a straight line from A to B.   
   Observer A at A sees the train fading away and becoming smaller.   
   Observer B at B sees the train awaking at the horizon and becoming larger.   
   Both tell the truth, but is it the reality? Is the actual train becoming   
   smaller or larger? No. What you need is one reality, one world, one   
   reference frame, one coordination system that both observers agree to   
   use as the basis for all descriptions of all processes.   
      
   That means you need some sort of translation of transformation to   
   transform the observed (measured) reality to this real reality.   
   In this real reality the process will evolve. At the end you again   
   need an (inverse) transformation to describe what you actual   
   will observe (measure).   
   This recognition between what we observe (which is observer dependent)   
   and what actual is, is very important, because it is observer independent.   
   In this real reality the actual processes take place.   
   One of the best examples is astronomy i.e. the movement of the stars etc.   
      
   In this real reality there is also a clear distinction between   
   processes based on electromagnetic phenomena and gravitational   
   phenomena. The first are related to radiation and light. The   
   second are not related to light, only to gravity i.e. gravitons.   
      
   However there more. Many processes take place at microscopic level   
   i.e. at a scale we humans are unable to observe (directly).   
      
   Not only that. Our observations are primarily based on light.   
   This is an issue if the processes we want to understand use light   
   signals or radiation, which behaviour itself is also a process.   
   A typical case is a clock.   
      
   SNIP   
      
   > The absurdity of this is manifest -- EVERYTHING we observe is consistent   
   > with the laws of physics, there is no possibility of "determining".   
      
   This is a tricky issue. All our knowledge evolves by try and error.   
   It is a struggle.   
   A typical case is our birds-eye view about the Universe. First we think   
   it is geocentric then heliocentric and now some think it is a multiverse.   
      
   > 	[Note also that everything we observe is correct (standard   
   > 	 meaning) -- it simply is not possible to make incorrect   
   > 	 observations. It is possible to interpret observations   
   > 	 incorrectly, and when that happens competent scientists   
   > 	 fix the error.]   
      
   Most important is the accuracy of our observations and measurements.   
   i.e. to make a difference between qualitative and quantitative.   
   As such the distinction between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics   
   is vague.   
      
   > In fact, science and physics are about modeling the world we inhabit. We   
   > have learned that the phrase "the laws of physics" is a chimera, and   
   > today we formulate MODELS, not "laws". For the simple reason that we now   
   > know that humans can never know the actual Laws used by Nature, the best   
   > we can possibly do is to approximate them, and that is not at all the sam=   
   e.   
      
   The meaning of chimera is illusion (Webster 1967).   
   Models, Mathematical equations, Laws are each an approximation of the   
   physical reality. It is wrong to claim that the world is controlled or   
   operate accordingly to any law (Newton's Law, SR, GR). Related to chemical=   
      
   reactions the laws that describe these reactions enforce certain limitation=   
   s.   
   We humans are =E2=80=98controlled' by DNA. These three laws mention=   
   ed only   
   describe a small subset of the full physical total.   
   In many cases starting point should be a model (of a human, a plant,   
   our economy or life on earth) of what we want to study, in order   
   to understand how it mechanical or physical (economical) functions   
   and or operates. The main objective (if possible) is to try to improve   
   the processes involved.   
      
   Above I have mentioned to try to describe the physical processes in   
   a certain abstract manner, independent of human observations.   
   Electromagnetic and mechanical processes (the movement of falling objects)=   
      
   are clearly different. In that sense I'm also not in favour to try to   
   unite these processes into one. That does not mean that the mathematics   
   that describe these processes can not be the (more or less) the same.   
   When you remove the observation aspects, the underlying mechanical   
   processes become simpler.  Also when all observations are based on   
   one clock (or a set of synchronised clocks, which its own problems)   
   you have the same effect.   
   My philosophy is that mechanical processes don't use photons nor a clock   
   in order to evolve as they do. For human processes this is different.   
   Just some =E2=80=98random' thoughts.   
      
   Nicolaas Vroom   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)