Idealism vs materialism, touchy and feely 2
Below was woody’s comment in PHF:
There have been a number of occasions in physics history where the descriptions were getting increasingly complicated.
(the epicycles in the orbits of the planets is probably my favourite example).
Then a new idea comes along, sweeps away the complication and opens paths for new discoveries.
(Newton's ideas on Gravity would never have been developed from the epicycle model).
Often the new idea requires the rejection of assumptions that were previously held sacrosanct
(the epicycle assumption held that the heavens are perfect, and circles are perfect, so there can be only circles in the heavens).
Piggy’s additional comment here:
According to the astronomical observation, the “orbits of the planets” actually are a bit “oval”. The significant thing in science was that Newton's ideas on Gravity and the classical Mechanics could explain / DESCRIBE it effectively. (The function of plane geometry was significant in this respect). Such physicals conceptions as length, time, energy, mass, force, momentum, angular momentum, work, power, etc, worked well with the assistance of some mathematical tools in scientific practice. Then, the primary physics / science system (frame) formally established.
+ / -, + / -, could do nothing;
Toggle toggle, could do nothing either;
NEUTRAL NEUTRAL, could do nothing either;
AUTOPILOT MANUAL, could do nothing either;
0101, could do nothing either;
Okay, the J – 10 # hole PRESENCE! It could do nothing either;
Useful is useful;
Useless is useless.
Have a lovely day.