Freedom of Science

I was wrong to say that John Baez did not have a definition of fundamental. I just found this paper where he writes:

By fundamental physics, I mean the search for a small set of laws which in principle determine everything we can calculate about the universe.

Fundamental physics

Obviously this is not a definition of fundamental; it is a definition of physics. Here fundamental is decorative, the sentence makes perfect sense without it:

Physics is the search for a small set of laws…

Baez added the word fundamental to mean theoretical:

Theoretical physics is the search for a small set of laws which in principle determine everything we can calculate about the universe.

Rule v. data

Baez defines physics as a search for laws. The implicit distinction Baez makes with law based and data based theories is a great illustration of what I wrote in this post about the status of rule based and data based models in physics.

Baez denigrates the standard of data based models, the Standard Model, as a baroque mess. This is the usual attitude of theoretical physicists regarding data based theories. Theoretical physicists are after absolute laws and saving the phenomena with simulation is best left to lower level physicists who make contact with experiments. Baez doesn’t realize that Standard Model is the Ptolemaic theory for particle physics.

Universal philosophers stone

We must correct Baez’ language regarding the number of ultimate laws physicists are looking for. Physicists are looking for a law, not laws. As long as there will be more than one absolute law physicists will keep looking. Physicists are looking for the ultimate cause, the absolute law of laws: the universal philosophers stone.

In principle

What will be the function of the universal absolute law? It will let physicists determine everything they can calculate about the universe. But, wait this is too clear a statement which means something and no physicist will let it go without normalizing it with a contradicting qualifier. So Baez says that this absolute final law will allow physicist to calculate everything calculable about the universe only in principle.

Universal crimes against science

In physics lingo universe means simultaneously the entire whole, some of the whole, many wholes, a part of the whole… in fact, universe means whatever physicists want it to mean. Universe is the universal meaningless word in physics. Physicists can use the word universe in the same sentence to mean the entire universe or one of the many universes they defined.

This is criminal behavior. It is criminal to behave like a doubletalking politician when you claim to be a scientist. It is a scientific crime to use polemical doublespeak and sell it as science.

Classical scholasticism incarnate

After all, I was not that wrong. I wrote that the only definition of physics is what physicists do. The only definition of fundamental is what physicists are working on today. This is how Baez defines fundamental: Fundamental is just a synonym for theoretical. To theorize in principle is what theoretical physicists do.

When you read it carefully and see through the polemical legal meanings of each word then you realize that Baez is describing classical scholasticism.

Only scholastic doctors busy themselves looking for ultimate universal philosophers stones in principle.lesbian online movies freefree porn movies downloadcredit with no card movies porn freesex free movies pornstarmovies big sex freemovie sex clip freesex xxx movies freemovies shemales free Map

ShareThis