Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA From: gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Help Message-ID: <716@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Mon, 14-May-84 06:22:20 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.716 Posted: Mon May 14 06:22:20 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 16-May-84 03:25:06 EDT Lines: 22 From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) I was making a distinction between things and actions, which the commonly- accepted view of causality does not (at least not in the same way). This is only one of several points of philosophy that can be quite relevant for the physical theorist, but it is not clear that an extended discussion on this mailing list would be appreciated. It is my firm belief that a fundamentally different attitude toward the "laws of physics" is taken by those who believe in a Prime Mover than by those who do not. In one case, the laws are "handed down from above" and could have been different; in the latter case, the laws cannot be arbitrary but must be the only possibility. The job of the theoretician is also different: in the first case, he is trying to discover what patterns exist and considers anything possible unless there is experimental evidence to the contrary; in the second case, he is trying to understand how the patterns are determined by a few truly fundamental principles and how those few principles can be further reduced. Even if the mathematical expression of the ultimate laws of physics were the same in both cases, it is clear that a fundamentally different mind-set holds for each of the two belief systems. The degree of certainty in the current state of one's knowledge is also affected by one's idea of what causes physical laws.