User talk:Krea

Welcome!

Hello, Krea, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! SFC9394 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Definition of physics[edit]

Hello, I have given you a welcome message (above) since nobody had yet got around to it! I am happy to discuss the issue, and will drop by the physics talk page and add my thoughts on the issue later on. The reasons for my reverting (and fairly stern wording in asking folks not to revert again) was purely to try and ward off revert wars - especially since we had anon IP's in there just reverting the whole thing without a care (the changes to the header pictures that got washed out with the anon IP's messing being an example of the problems when wholesale reverts start kicking off). I accept that the definition and intro are very important for the WP article on one of the principle areas of science, and I am sure consensus can be reached between us all on the most appropriate text to use! Best wishes, --SFC9394 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully a new intro can be formed together - I will give it over the weekend to see if anyone else has anything to contribute on the talk page. I think we are both in rough agreement about the best form of an intro. Ultimately if there aren't many more views forthcoming then we can take it to WP:RFC to get some extra input - not really because there is a 'dispute', but more to ensure that it is not just only the two of us forming the introduction - as with something as big as a fundamental science it is, as you say, important to get it right. In general, articles on subjects with this kind of stature need to be of high quality or WP falls down - there is no point having accurate, sourced details info on some obscure slow punk rock band when basic correctness on one of the fundamental sciences is lacking! Feel free to post on my talk page if there are any specifics you want to let me know about, Best, --SFC9394 20:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I will hopefully get a chance to respond to the intro discussion at some point over the weekend once I have had found some time to read it all properly and form together my thoughts on the subject. Best, SFC9394 12:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with your exegesis of "physics"[edit]

In your user page you say:

entities that physically argue are assumed not to have knowledge of how natue actually behaves for what is being considered

This sentence is very unclear because of several problems:

The meaning of "entities". You could mean anything from electrons to angels. As I read this sentence and try to make sense of it I flip-flop between "anything that is or appears to be discrete enough to have an identity, e.g., lever bars," and "sentient entities."
The meaning of "physically argue." Unless you believe in mental telepathy, any arguing that I have ever heard about is conducted via some kind of physical interaction. But maybe by "argue" you mean "interact." Maybe you are talking about any mass, any electromagnetic radiation, etc., and how it and other such things interact. Or, it just occurred to me, maybe you mean "people who argue about physics."
The phrase "are assumed not to have knowledge" could mean that, e.g., "some proton does not have knowledge of the neutron nearest to it," or "bricks falling from the top of a building know nothing of the air." But if you are using these words to discuss philosophy in natural language, then probably that means that "entities" must mean "people" until such time as we find other sentient beings to talk to.
The final "for what is being considered" would normally be interpreted as pertaining to the word immediately preceding it. But probably you don't really mean to say that nature behaves for us (the way my dogs behave well or badly for me).
Why use "assumed"? In ordinary language, when we say something like, "I assume she must be his daughter," we indicate a belief that the speaker knows is not well grounded. It amounts to saying something like, "I don't have very good grounds for saying it's his daughter. Maybe she's a paid escort." But if I am following you correctly you actually mean to say that we have absolutely no grounds for affirming that we know how nature actually works.

Supposing that the "axiom" quoted above is talking about people, you may be trying to say something like: "People who communicate with each other in an attempt to understand some facet of physics have absolutely no grounds for believing that they actually understand, or could eventually understand, the real way that things work." In other words, we know that we are always in the situation of poking various things into the black box, watching what comes out of the black box, and trying to make up a persuasive story to account for what has happened.

I hope this crituque is helpful. At least it may indicate to you how at least one "average well-informed reader" interprets what you have written. P0M 23:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to explain what I meant with that sentence; first, by explaining the meaning of the words I used, and then the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

Answering your first point, I tried to imply conscious beings when I said "entities that physically argue" (you got it when you said "people who argue about physics"): literally, somebody who is able to think and argue about physics. Now, why did I put it like that? Well, remember that I am trying to be general and do not want to make any assumptions that are not required. Therefore, I couldn't say "people", because that assumes people (as we know them) exist. Maybe angels do exist, or electrons can think: that doesn't matter to me - all that should concern us is that something is able to think about physics, i.e. "entities that physically argue". I also tried to sidestep the issues of consciousness. In particular, I never specified what these "entities" are: are they conscious? What does it mean to be conscious? And so forth...

In answering your first objection, I've answered your second: "physically argue" just means something that is able to argue about physics. Note that I always (in this definition at least) use the word "physically" as meaning "of physics" rather than meaning "something that is material", which is its everyday meaning.

From what you have written, it is clear that you understand the key principle of physics; but, I'm not sure you've quite understood the subtle point I was trying to make. So, let me re-state my argument in plainer English (and apologise in advance if I've insulted your intelligence):

When people argue about physics, and indeed anybody debates some topic of physics, we all understand that we are just guessing, basically. But, why are we guessing? Why don't we inherently know? Try to answer this question yourself. For example, you know there exists one type of electromagnetic charge (that has two opposite flavours, called positive and negative by convention); but, you know this because you have seen it (or, more likely, somebody else saw it and told you about it). Why didn't you inherently know this?

Most people's answer is that they just do not have this knowledge. Why don't we have this knowledge? Well, we don't know why. In fact, physics serves as the answer to any lack of true knowledge. Thus, we must assume that nobody has this knowledge in order for physics to exist (we "assume" because we don't actually know but believe it to be true).

Still don't get my point? Well, let's think about this hypothetical situation: suppose everybody is born with an innate knowledge of how nature actually behaves. That, somehow, you, me, every one of us knows with absolute certainty what nature is actually doing. Therefore, there is no need for physics - no need to do experiments, no need for us to think about how nature behaves: we already know. Let us now ask this question: is this situation possible? Obviously, we don't know of any (sane) person who makes such an extraordinary claim; but, it could be possible. Therefore, we must ASSUME THAT THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE in order for physics to be applicable. In other words, this is my axiom: "No person shall ever be born who inherently knows what nature is actually doing: everybody who lives, who has lived, and who will ever live, will only be able to guess." Thus, I said:

"...entities that physically argue are assumed not to have knowledge of how nature actually behaves for what is being considered."

The direct translation being:

"...we assume that people who think about physics have no inherent knowledge of how nature actually behaves for whatever it is that they are thinking about, otherwise, physics itself would be pointless."

I exert that this is an axiom because there is no reason (as far as anybody currently knows) why we should not be born with this fantastic knowledge.

Considering your opinions, I accept that it would be sensible to elaborate this issue rather than just leaving it as two esoteric sentences.

Now that you have brought the issue up though, maybe I should also include the axiom that conscious "entities" are assumed to exist; although, would this be considered to be a trivial axiom?

Anyway, if you have any more, or still have any, objections, I would be happy to address them.

Krea 00:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An axion is "a statement universally accepted as true."

You need to focus not on what is defensible but on what will actually communicate what you mean to the average well-informed reader. I may be wrong, but more than three decades as a university teacher tells me that most people will misunderstand what you have written. P0M 02:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An axiom is "a statement whose truth cannot be deduced; but, is nevertheless universally accepted as being true".

I have already accepted that the sentence needed elaborating in order for its meaning to be made clear. But, I do in fact have two concerns: that of clarity, as you mentioned, and that of accuracy. As such, I tried to explain the meaning of that sentence in the hope that you could give me your opinion on its factual content. Concerning clarity, I will change the paragraph to:

Note that it is sometimes stated that physics is based solely on observations and has no axioms. This, however, is incorrect. Whilst physics is indeed based on observation, the existence of physics itself must be justified. Since there exists no way to deduce this, it must be exerted via an axiom. To explain, observe that the definition of physics, given above, essentially states that physics makes observations in order to deduce what laws exist. However, if it is already known what these laws are, the very existence of physics is invalidated. We therefore need to exert that we are not privy to this knowledge (in order for physics itself to exist). Since there does not currently exist a reason why we should not, in theory, possess this knowledge, and it is believed that we do not, the following statement is made:

It must be assumed that "entities" that argue about physics (we do not specify what these "entities" are) do not possess knowledge about how nature actually behaves for whatever it is that is under consideration.

Hopefully, this is much clearer than before; but, only you can tell me that. Krea 00:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's late now, so I won't try to say very much at this time. I have lots of problems both with what you appear to me to be trying to say, and the way that you try to say it.

You are trying to address issues that have taken the whole history of philosophy to even begin to get clear on and reduce them to one dogmatic statement. You might be right in what you say, but even after other people talked with you long enough to figure out what you really mean you would still have to write a book or two to prove that you are right. So just being right is not very satisfactory.

Maybe you can think of it this way. Two Platonists might contend that they each "know" what the truth is about the laws that govern the behavior of things, but elaborate by saying that they have forgotten (just as Plato says myth teaches us we must forget when we become incarnated). For the Platonist, what is required is to get enough empirical information to remind us of the knowledge we are having trouble recalling.

You might be interested in Gottfried Martin's book, Kant's Metaphysics and the Theory of Science. It gives a very good background into the reasons that Kant's philosophy is still valued today even though it bit the dust and spawned the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl and also had a very strong impact on the modern philosophy of science. (There are also considerations about how to make studies like geometry not depend on covert references to empirical generalizations, the nature of space and time, etc.) I sense that you come at things from a rather classical Greek standpoint. Whether you are more comfortable with Plato or with Aristotle I cannot say. Aquinas perhaps? If you want help formulating your ideas in ways that present-day Aristotelians would find helpful, I think you might need to get help from a graduate of one of the philosophy programs that follow Aquinas. My own way of thinking about things is much closer to the Vienna Circle, so the very idea of "something being universally accepted as true" strikes me the wrong way.

If you say, "Well, you're wrong about that," then we get into a very long discussion about epistemology. We can't bring those discussions into an article with a limit of 32k, and we shouldn't burden the reader with them. Besides, we would be hit with valid accusations of "doing original research" (forbidden for Wikipedia articles) and for failure to maintain a neutral point of view (which people around here usually abbreviate as "NPOV.")

I think you need to find a persuasive way of expressing what you want to say about physics. Dogmatic statements, axioms, and the like are not intended to, nor do they function to, persuade. In other words, I think you can find a way to get your idea across without appealing to absolutes.P0M 06:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me that you understand what it is that I am trying to say at all. I agree that views on the meaning of knowledge, for example, would be inappropriate; but, I can assure you that the views expressed in the definition, from a physical point of view, are neither new nor personal.

You seem to think I am expressing views on philosophy: I am not. Everything that I have said is logical inference from one axiom: that nobody possess true knowledge of how nature behaves. (If the Platonist claims he/she has forgotten, then he/she doesn't know then, does he/she? Whether they did at one point know is of no consequence: the fact that they don't know now is enough to justify the existence of physics.)

I also do not think you know what an axiom is (I sincerely apologise if you do): an axiom is some fact that we assume to be true. Do you disagree with the axiom given? Do you think we possess knowledge of how nature behaves? This is not a philosophical question: it is merely a question of circumstance (although we could go into much more philosophical detail).

Before I go further, I think it would be prude if you made it clear what you think it is that I am trying to say; and to do that I hope that you read what I have written very carefully. Krea 11:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already tried that approach. See above. P0M

If you want to be understood it would be prudent for you to write carefully.

You say that I do not know what an axiom is. You give your own definition "An axiom is 'a statement whose truth cannot be deduced; but, is nevertheless universally accepted as being true') without reasoning or authority. As you explain it the second time around, an axiom is something that is assumed to be true. What if somebody else assumes something else to be true? The requirement for defending the assertion that anything you present as an axiom is "universally accepted as being true" is immense. You have to show yourself not to be wrong a few billion times just counting the present population of Earth, and the next person you question may always be an individual who does not accept the "axiomatic" statement.

I drew my definition from Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, which reflects the understanding that the average well-informed reader will have -- or will get if, being in doubt, he/she consults the dictionary. That dictionary tells us that the word developed from a Greek word that meant "worthy." I quote the first definition verbatim: "1. a statement universally accepted as true; maxim." That definition is for the general speaker of English. As this is a technical discussion, we should see what established scholars in the field teach. Let's see what one of the members of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton had to say:

Euclid's axioms of geometry are the classical prototype [of the axiomatic method].... One defines all concepts in terms of a few undefined basic concepts and deduces all propositions from a number of basic propositions, the axioms, concerning the basic concepts. In earlier times authors were inclined to claim a priori evidence for their axioms; however this is an epistemological aspect which does not interest the mathematician. Deduction takes place according to the principles of formal logic.... [Mathemmatics]] is not concerned with the truth of axioms, but only with their consistency...."

Note that he said nothing about his accepting the truth of the axioms. The geometry of Riemann (and much of modern physics) followed from asking what would happen to geometry if we did not accept the "a priori" truths that Euclid and most people thought were true. Relativity theory won't fit into Euclidean geometry.

We can make all sorts of axioms and use them in ways that produce logically consistent propositions. Different systems of axioms will produce different sets of propositions. One requirement that we make of a proposed theory in the sciences is that it not contradict itself at any point, i.e., that it be logically consistent. Whether the theory is useful depends on another kind of test: whether its system of propositions can be interpreted in some way that produces useful predictions about the behavior of the real-world As Richard von Mises (one time director of the Institute for Applied Mathematics at the University of Berlin and later a Harvard professor) said in "Mathematical Postulates and Human Understanding":

The connection of a system of axioms and their consequent theorems with reality, i.e., the meaning of its statements, has to be determined in the same way as that of all other statements, by coordinating the words and idioms used in them to elementary experiences by means of reduction to protocol statements. On this basis one can differentiate between axiomatic systems for which consistency and independence have already been proved, according to whether or not they can be used for the description of observable facts.

Far from being some kind of universal truths, axioms are simply any statements that one decides to work with in a logically consistent way. One could start out to establish a purely abstract system, "just for the hell of it," but few if any people would do so. People who bother to work out consistent sets of propositions generally have something in mind to begin with -- they aren't just testing their ability to avoid making logical mistakes when they construst statements. As Raymond Wilder (the past president of the Mathematics Association of America and the American Mathematical Society and a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) says in "The Axiomatic Method":

Let us consider more fully the source of the statements embodied in the axioms. We chose axioms for geometry in our example Γ since we felt that we could assume the reader had studied some elementary geometry in high school. That is, we were careful to pick a subject already familiar! The undefined technical terms "point" and "line" already have a meaning of some sort for us. And ... this is the usual way in which axioms are obtained; they are statements about some concept with which we already have some familiarity.... Thus, in practice, the concept comes first, the axioms later. Theoretically this is not necessary, of course. Thus, we may say "Let us take as undefined terma aba and daba, and set down some axioms in these and universal logical terms."

Now, back to what you said:

"An axiom is some fact that we assume to be true."

You have come up with something that Aquinas would probably call a "conflict of notes." I.e., there is a problem about having a "fact" that one then "assumes to be true." If it is a "fact," then there is no doubt about it. On the other hand, if it is not really a fact but is instead a proposition, and if we then just assume that it is true, then it is only a conjecture, a statement taken provisionally to see where operating logically with it will get us.

Change your formulation to "An axiom is some proposition that we assume for the sake of argument to be true," and I will accept it.

"Do you disagree with the axiom given? Do you think we possess knowledge of how nature behaves? This is not a philosophical question: it is merely a question of circumstance (although we could go into much more philosophical detail)."

If I disagree with it, then it cannot actually be an axiom if by that you mean "an indubitable truth," "something true a priori," or whatever.

If you have to prove that it is true, argue that it is true, then you practically contradict yourself when you say: "An axiom is 'a statement whose truth cannot be deduced; but, is nevertheless universally accepted as being true'." If you have to give reasons for it, you weaken your assertion that everybody knows it is true.P0M 04:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see what your objections are. First, let me apologise for the manner in which I last replied: in honesty, I was a little annoyed because I jumped to the unfair conclusion that you did not read what I wrote carefully, whereas in truth you paid more attention than I might have hoped for. Now, I am fairly annoyed with myself for writing "An axiom is a fact that we assume to be true". Of course, you are right to protest at the contradiction implied. I should, indeed, have written that it is some proposition, just as you said.

I am glad that I am conversing with somebody at all about this topic, as nobody else seems bothered enough, and as such let me first make sure I understand what you are saying. If I understand correctly, you are saying that you do not agree to my exertion that the statement is an "axiom" because axioms are arbitrary (as long as they are logically consistent) and therefore, I need to justify the axiom because I, myself, claim it to be true.

Euclid thought that certain things were so obviously matters of fact that he could just start from that point. I don't know whether he even asserted that they were necessarily true. Later on I suppose that people started to believe that they were apodictic statements. Finally people started to wonder what you would get if you fiddled with one or more of the axioms. Next they realized that there is actually an empirical grounds for our general acceptance of Euclidian geometry -- within the limits of our daily experience his picture of space fits so well that we never notice any discrepancies. The sum of the angles of any triangle we can lay out is always 180°. Now we would like to know whether space is not perhaps very slightly curved in such a way that the some of angles over interstellar (or maybe intergalactic) distances is not exactly 180°. Other axioms lead to other geometries. Then people started getting really serious about what you had to do to make something like geometry truly independent of covert dependence on empirical knowledge, and, having straightened that part of the picture out, what you could say about the completeness of any system of propositions founded on a finite set of axioms. At about that point Whitehead, Russell, Gŏdel, et al. got involved and things got really interesting.

Rather than trying to prove a statement of universal scope (such as "Light travels in a straight line") for a conversation of limited scope (such as "This board must be warped because when I sight down the long edge of it from one corner to the opposite corner the middle of the board clearly pulls to the left"), it is much less trouble to ask the person you are arguing with whether they can give any reason for believing the contrary (e.g., that "Light does not travel in a straight line").

Finally, I am not nearly as clever as my ego tells me I am, so if I have misunderstood, please correct me. Krea 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I have is with that one sentence. The rest of what you have written seemed o.k. to me. That one sentence seemed to me to offer readers multiple opportunities to go baying down the wrong trail.

The physics of the twentieth century started talking about models rather than about truths. Physicists acknowledged that they were outside the black box trying to imagine a mechanism on the inside that might account for observen phenomena, and that they could work to eliminate problems and still never have adequate reason to believe that they had the correct model. Maybe God sees electrons, but humans can't.

Rather than "entities that physically argue are assumed not to have knowledge of how natue actually behaves for what is being considered," I would probably put the burden of proof on the other guy and say something like this: "When individuals discuss how natural processes are governed, is there any reason for believing anyone to have pertinent knowledge that is not grounded on that same course of reasoned arguments about empirical knowledge?" That way you are not pushing an assumption on the reader. S/he is going to consider the question, and, if s/he is honest, come to the same conclusion about it that you have reached. P0M 02:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I now see what has been causing our dispute: because of what I wrote, I think that you thought I was saying, "physics is true, and this is an axiom of physics; therefore, the axiom is also true," and you want me to say, "Is this axiom true? Therefore, is physics applicable?". What I actually intended to say was this: "The axiom that I state is an axiom of physics because it is a trivial consequence of the definition of physics. Thus, if we believe physics is true, and therefore applicable to nature, we are implicitly expressing the belief that we believe that axiom to also be true." The problem was that of definition: you defined an axiom that makes a direct reference to nature, whereas I did not. I defined an axiom thus: a "physical axiom" is equivalent to the "mathematical axiom" but with one important difference: the physical axiom concerns "truth" because that is what physics concerns (likewise, the mathematical axiom does not concern "truth" because it is of no concern to pure mathematics). Therefore, an axiom of physics is a statement that we believe to be true but cannot justify if we believe physics to be true. It is this "if we believe physics to be true" that is the distinction between our two definitions. You put the responsibility of truth (with regard to applicability to nature) on the axiom, and I put it on the object to which the axiom refers to. In my definition both mathematical and physical axioms always apply to the object that they describe. They do not concern truth: they are merely rules that must be satisfied in order for the object that they describe to exist. Thus, if physics is about aquiring knowledge, then one of its axioms (which do not concern whether nature does this or not) is that we do not have this knowledge; otherwise, the very existence of physics would be invalidated.

If you keep in mind that that I do not state that physics is necessarily applicable to nature and that this exertion is merely belief, I never say that my axiom is true. All I say is that if physics is true, then so is that axiom. You implcitly thought that I exerted that physics was "true", and therefore that the axiom was also "true". Now, we both are trying to say the same thing, but in different ways. So let me re-state my argument in an absolutely clear way:

It is important to understand that there is no reason to believe that physics is applicable to nature. However, if we believe physics is indeed applicable, we are also implicitly expressing the belief that entities that physically argue (we do not specify what these "entities" are) do not possess a prior knowledge as to how nature actually behaves; otherwise, physics itself would be invalidated since we already know how nature works. This statement can be thought of as an "axiom" of physics in that it must be satisfied in order for physics to exist. However, the pivotal question that we can ask is to whether this axiom is true and we are correct to apply physics to nature. In other words, do we possess this inherent knowledge or not? Of course, this question cannot be answered and it can only be left to the reader to come to their own conclusions as to how they believe nature to behave.

Krea 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that instead of "physics would be invalidated" you might want to say something like "the need for physics research would be obviated." Also, in situations such as you describe above I believe most people speak of something being "analytically true" rather than putting it in terms of the word "axiom."

A major turning point in the way people thought/think about physics occurred when people inquired closely into how they were deciding which physics theories to accept and which to reject. They concluded that we can have a kind of growing certainty that we want to keep a theory (a coherent set of empirical generalizations) if we keep making experiments refining them and find that the theory predicts what we will see in the real world to a high level of confidence. But we always have to admit the possibility that when we move out of familiar territory (toward greater velocities, toward greater gravitational fields, toward smaller and smaller particles, etc.) we may find something that will shock us out of our complacency. Maybe it will force us to come up with a new theory. They also concluded that the truly defining characteristic of a scientific proposition is that we can actually test the proposition, the theory, to see whether we can find it to be wrong. So modern science (unlike many of the earlier thinkers) does not aspire to certainty, and certainly does not dare claim certainty.

One of the annoying things about Kant as a philosopher is that he sometimes says things like, "I know that such-and-so is true, but I don't have time or space to go into the matter here, so just trust me." He was assuming that he was on the right track and that he could work things out to prove what he already believed, but since he never got around to proving some of these things they are at minimum very weak.

The people who both work as serious researchers in the sciences and also try to think carefully about what they are doing and how they are doing it seem to me to take a very different approach. Otto von Neurath explained the actual process of developing modern science as being like rebuilding a ship while out on the open sea. His meaning was just that we work with our current understandings, our current theories, and at some point we find a problem with it. So we fix the part that we know is not good, but we know that tomorrow we may find something else that needs fixing. We never really get convinced that we have a perfectly seaworthy ship.

So most people start from uncertainty and error, from knowing that they have no reason for certainty, from knowing that errors have popped up in "true" theories before. Judging by past results, God apparently isn't giving the secrets of the universe to anybody. So everything has to come through our empirical knowledge and our reason, evidence and analysis. As long as we keep the limitations in mind, we have good reason to stake our lives on physics. We've used and implicitly tested things so many of thousands or millions of times without finding reason to doubt the theoretical predictions that we can justifiably say that we are pretty darn sure of what we are doing.

The field of philsophy has generally gone the other way for some reason, with each philosopher trying to defeat the other and to come up with the absolute truth. I suspect that the people who think that way want to start with an indubitable truth and work the fabric of reality out from there. Descartes started with "I think therefore I am," for instance. It's rare for people with a philosophical mindscape to start instead with the richness and the ambiguity of experience and ask how, in practice, people have worked from confusion and uncertainty to relatively clarity and predictability. P0M 02:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to change, "physics would be invalidated," to, "the need for physics research would be obviated," because your correction has undertones of applicability to nature, which is not the point of the contradiction that is being explained in that paragraph (I will return back to this shortly).

It is not clear to me what is meant by "analytically true" (analytic has a clear meaning in mathematics and thus physics); but, you do not need to elucidate because I think it would be wise for me to drop the word "axiom" and all implicit references to it altogether: it is causing too much unnecessary complications that require much more time to define in a clear and intuitive way.

Now, I do not understand the point that you try to illuminate in the rest of your comment. I agree with it and understand what you say, just not why you are saying it: I do not see how it relates to the paragraph in question.

Nevertheless, back to my first point, let us work constructively: first, you tell me what you think it is that I am trying to say in a manner that is as clear and direct as possible and I will promise to return the compliment of clarity. Krea 23:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Your words were:

entities that physically argue are assumed not to have knowledge of how natue actually behaves for what is being considered

When individuals argue about the validity of various explanations offered for why things in the realm of physics behave as they do, there are none who maintain that they have a non-empirical validation of any such theory or explanation.

Earlier I paraphrased it in a slightly different way: "People who communicate with each other in an attempt to understand some facet of physics have absolutely no grounds for believing that they actually understand, or could eventually understand, the real way that things work." I still accept that formulation, although it would need to be bolstered by a reminder that no theory is other than a free fabrication, a model, created by human beings. Of course not all people will accept that idea, and there are some who will assert that they have non-empirical reasons that justify acceptance of certain physical events. P0M 00:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine to me but, because I was not clear, when I said, “entities that physically argue are assumed not to have knowledge of how nature actually behaves for what is being considered,” I left out some key points that has caused our wires to get crossed.

Start over[edit]

I, and probably you also, feel we've been at this far to long so let's forget everything we've previously said and start all over again. Let me, trying to fulfill my promise of clarity, state the key points of my argument.

Physics, like we have both said, is just some arbitrary analysis that has no inherent reason to be applicable to nature.

I would avoid the word "analysis," since to have an analysis you have to have something that you are analyzing, and your analysis would be applicable to what your are analyzing.

Let us now consider what we can infer if we exert that we believe physics is indeed applicable to nature (bearing in mind that we have no justification to believe this to be true)

The meaning of the word "exert" that you appear to be using here is obsolete according to my dictionary. "Assert" would work better for most readers.

We infer that we must also believe that we do not have an intrinsic knowledge of how nature truly behaves (I will now call this the corollary assumption from now on).

Are you saying that statement 3 follows logically from statement 2? Or are you saying something else?

The reason that we must make this corollary assumption is because the contrary to the corollary assumption would contradict the definition of physics (remembering that we are assuming that physics is applicable to nature). The reason for this is because the definition of physics has the implicit assumption that we do not possess this inherent knowledge (and the definition goes on to say that physics, therefore, is some process to infer what may be happening).

I suspect that "assumption" is not the appropriate word to use here. "To take for granted, to suppose something to be a fact" -- which implies no rigor where you want to talk about a rigorous process of reasoning.

That is essentially it. Now, I didn't want to say, "the need for physics research would be obviated," because in step 2) I assumed physics was applicable to nature and then inferred the corollary assumption from the definition of physics. Thus, the contrary of the corollary assumption does not contradict the applicability of physics to nature, but rather the definition of physics.

Anyway, let us now argue about these four statements instead of anything else. Thus, before I try to transfer these four statements into prose, do you object to anything in them (or, have I broken my promise and do I need to make a better attempt at clarity, which is entirely possible)? Krea 00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what you have to say about the vocabulary problems. Right now what you have written seems unnecessarily convoluted. Are you familiar with symbolic logic? P0M 06:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant “analysis” as a verb, not as a noun: i.e., physics is method of analysis, not an analysis of something. But, for the sake of clarity, I’ll consider a substitute. Do you have any suggestions?
Just glancing at my Collins Dictionary, “exert”, in it’s first sense, means “to use forcefully or effectively”. Thus, when I exert some premise to be true, I am doing so in a forceful manner. However, “assert” seems fine to me as a substitute.
Yes, statement 3 follows from statement 2 (by the definition of physics, as explained in statement 4).
Yes, you are correct here too: it should be “corollary statement” rather than “corollary assumption”.

Symbolic logic? Well, I use the standard mathematical symbols when conducting proofs and I’m familiar with Boolean symbols, but I haven’t used logic in quite a while and I’ve never rigorously studied it. So, I’ll try to express my argument in a logical language as best I can, but it may be complete wrong. Also, I think I’ve found a link in my argument that I didn’t explain properly and could be causing a fundamental confusion of what I am trying to say (I’ll get back to this); so, let’s use the following paragraph as a revised explanation of my argument and ignore the last one.

Logic[edit]

Now, physics is just one way of analysing nature. The definition of an analysis of something includes the assertion that we do not have an inherent knowledge of how whatever it is that is under consideration truly behaves (this is the bit that I didn’t explain properly, as mentioned above). Let proposition P be the assertion that physics is an appropriate analysis to apply to nature, and let proposition Q be the assertion that we do not have an inherent knowledge of how nature truly behaves (the “corollary statement”).

Now, P $\rightarrow$ Q because P is an analysis (of nature).

Is this any clearer? The main problem will be whether everybody else agrees with the definition of “an analysis of something” that I exert. We must include proposition Q (the “corollary statement”) in the definition of something (because it doesn’t logically follow from any proposition), the question is whether we include it in the definition of physics or in the definition of an analysis. Krea 02:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Analysis" is a noun. "Analyze" is a verb. One analyzes something and by that process obtains an analysis.

Collins defines "exert" in its fundamental sense. You use it, however, in its extended sense. People in the 17th or 18th century may have easily understood the extended sense. The problem for making yourself understood with a world-wide audience of English speakers in the world today is that most people will not stretch their minds far enough to get the point, and even if they do they will be at least subconsciously irritated at having to do a word puzzle in the middle of a discussion that is hard enough as is.

Back to your words:

Now, physics is just one way of analysing nature. The definition of an analysis of something includes the assertion that we do not have an inherent knowledge of how whatever it is that is under consideration truly behaves (this is the bit that I didn’t explain properly, as mentioned above). Let proposition P be the assertion that physics is an appropriate analysis to apply to nature, and let proposition Q be the assertion that we do not have an inherent knowledge of how nature truly behaves (the “corollary statement”).

Now, P $\rightarrow$ Q because P is an analysis (of nature).

The line above means: "IF physics is an appropriate analysis to apply to nature, THEN we do not have an inherent knowledge of how nature truly behaves." And you seem to assert that "physics is an appropriate analysis to apply to nature" is itself an analysis of nature. The assertion part does not make sense. What is wrong with your way of setting things up? Maybe what you put last (after "because") was intended to be your premise? Am I right in getting the feeling that the nature of an analysis is fundamental to the idea of physics, and that the idea of an analysis includes/implies/binds within itself the idea that if work is done it must be because works needs to be done? Let me start over for you.

How should we define "physics"? You want to use the phrase "perform an analysis," so that term needs to be defined too, and its definition should come first. You also want to rule out "inherent knowledge," "intuitive knowledge," "a priori knowledge," etc., but you cannot do that because only an omniscient being could be sure that such a thing does not exist. However, we are not actually interested in God's knowledge or the knowledge of some super-man. If somebody claims that kind of knowledge, then we can ignore this person and just avoid riding in airplanes he has designed. (At least I would.) We are interested in the cases that we regularly come in contact with, viz., the people who do not know what is really going on in nature and admit that they do not know but are still trying to figure things out somehow. So, here we go:

1."If a person is curious about nature AND if that person does not already know the laws of nature, THEN that person may investigate nature empirically (i.e. make an analysis of nature)." (There are all sorts of other things that this person might do, but we won't look at them because nothing tempts us to do so.)

2."Physics is a sub-set of investigations of nature that seeks to discover the most general empirical generalizations (and does not, except as forming their foundation, deal with complex systems such as are studied in, e.g., biology)."

3."Physics 'inherits' the empirical nature of the body of studies of which it is a sub-set."

If I define physics as I have done above, then any study that is intended/designed to be a physics study will be an empirical study, and any result gained as the result of that process of analysis will be an empirical result. At the same time, it will be an artifact, the creation of a human mind that has reached out and imposed order on its world. (That part should be worked into the definition in more detail. It is only implicit at present.) Once I've defined physics this way I have eliminated the Word of God (a.k.a. WOG) because it doesn't fit the definition. I've also eliminated alleged reports on the WOG, products of intuition, mystical insights into the order of the Universe, etc., etc. It is not that I deny them, necessarily. It is just that they represent some kind of knowledge that is different from scientific knowledge. Practical people will choose the pictures of the world that make airplanes that last as long as the DC-3 and avoid waxen wings and levitation for hire. P0M 08:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been gone for a while. Anyway, my last statement didn't define things properly, so I will publish a much more thorough version in a few weeks time (owing to more pressing concerns). I'll comment on your remarks then also. Krea 21:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to add, I'm afraid. But I did find something from another point of view that may help you formulate what you are trying to get at. See Chapter One of Foundations of Physics, by Robert Bruce Lindsay and Henry Margenau. It's a Dover book, probably out of print by now. It should be in university libraries, however. P0M 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have resigned myself to the fact that it will take more time than I will have for the next year to formulate this properly; yet, that sorry extant definition irks me so much that I am pushed to present a more simplistic version of what I ultimately want to say in order to eradicate it:

We would like physics to be the description of how nature truly behaves, and, as a first attempt at a definition, this is what we may naively assert. However, at current, such an ideal is not thought possible. If, as observed, no person (or more generally, no "entity" – we do not specify what – that can inquire about physics) has any prior inherent knowledge of the true behaviour of nature, then they may only infer what laws are likely to be followed by nature through observation alone. It may conspire that nature will, in the future, allow only one consistent description of its behaviour, in which case what is inferred by observation and what is the true description of nature will concur. This, however, is merely speculation, and it may turn out that it will never be possible to know how nature truly behaves. The conclusion is that, presently, we may only conduct physics through observation and there is no reason to believe that such observations are "true" in the sense that they reveal nature’s true form.

What I leave out are the assumptions about physics we must make in order to restrict it to a process of "observations and inferences alone": these, and such arguments, I must now leave.

If you see any objections, please point only one of them out at first and list only arguments of why it is objectionable please: I have little time to do anything but tackle them one by one.

As for your recommended reading, I will see if they have that book where I currently reside – to be truthful, I haven’t sought their library out yet – although I have much else I would like to read before October. Krea 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, just look at my main page: the new definition should be a lot tamer. Krea 00:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any major problems with the definition part. There are only a few pages of the Lindsay and Margenau book that are exactly on the topic you want to talk about. They are professors of physics and are writing for other physicists, so they tend to say things their own way, but I think I am following them clearly enough to be sure they are onto the same ground that you are trying to cover. The two of them were probably at the top of their game when they wrote the book, and they had each other to bounce ideas around with, so they probably managed to say pretty much what they intended to say and they probably said things that most everbody in the field would agree with.

I am suggesting that what they wrote might need to be explicated for the general reader (maybe some gobblydegook needs to be cut too), but that they probably got it right. If you end up disagreeing with them, then that in itself would be a worthwhile discovery. Maybe they and everyone who accepts their story have got it wrong. Either way, you own account may come out clearer.

One of the things I am interested in is the way that language tends to limit and/or form the things that we can conceive. Language is perhaps the first level at which the human mind reaches out and puts a construction on certain [facts if you're a lawyer] [data if you are a psychologist], and says "HURTS!" or whatever. We are born into and learn a version of a soup of concepts. The concepts that we use have to agree tolerably well with the concepts used by other people else we get put into a mental institution.

I got interested in physics by reading George Gamow's One, Two, Three...Infinity when I was about 16. I can remember trying to go from words (and Gamow was one of the great physicists who generally could express himself quite well in English -- even better in Russian, perhaps) to some kind of idea, some kind of representation to myself of what the words meant. It took years for those mushy ideas to get clarified. Sometimes I suppose I misconceptualized things and only gradually got them straightened out years and years later.

I was much better with electricity, not because my math ability suddenly improved mid-year of freshman physics major physics, but because I had had my hands on the resistors, capacitors, etc., for five years or so by that point. So I didn't start with abstractions and just try to apply formulae by rote. I knew what happens when two resistors are connected in parallel and what happens when they are connected in series, and I knew how the abstractions related to the behavior of the real things.

I believe that both the mystics and the scientists go from "Wow, that's certainly different!" kinds of experiences, to repetition and teasing apart, and finally to some kind of attempt to put the experience concisely in words or mathematical symbols or whatever, and generally these people learn that they have to be prepared to be revisionists. (One thing M & L talk about is how one has to keep an eye on the range through which one's empirical generalizations are reliable.)

The person with an ideology or a "philosophy" gets some insight, makes an (over-)generalization, and then confidently expects to be able to draw valid conclusions from his principle with no limits on range. I guess this kind of behavior has a psychological explanation, but I see no good reasons whatsoever to believe that these expections should turn out to be true.

So the "game" that we are all playing is trying to come up with the most useful fictions. (I like to remember that "fiction" literally means something that is made by humans. Calling something a fiction isn't really such a bad put-down.) Maybe people expect a physics that can be approached as one would approach Euclidean geometry because of the way that science is commonly taught at the pre-college level. "This is Newton's first law..." But I don't think one can prove that there is no such deductive system. Maybe the Savior will be discovered on Mars and will tell us the principle from which everything can be deduced. It's thinkable. But I'm not holding my breath. I am the sceptic who asks, "Why, if there is somebody who knows this principle, has nobody stated it by now?" P0M 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may possibly pop down to the library today and certainly what you have said has raised my interest for the book (although I did want to read "A course in mathematics for students of physics" by Bamberg & Sternberg [a brilliant mathematics book] and "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" by Dirac [to see what the master has to say] this summer also). I certainly agree that language plays a key role in formulating and expressing ideas. I find my curiosity drawn to the nature of time (although I have much yet to learn of the subject) and once read how the western world imagined time as flowing from left to right, and the eastern philosophy imagined time to flow from the ground upwards (if I remember correctly). I myself seem to embody a typical theorist (or more accurately, one who is learning to become a theorist), which is why I attempted this task in the first place; and I must, as you have said, recognise the validity of any framework if I wish to gain any theoretic insights. I once remarked that when one argues whether theorems are invented or discovered, I thought most were invented precisely because they were "fictions". From a theological perspective (which ultimately seems to guide my scientific perspective - although hopefully not blindly) I also doubt there will be any such proof as the existence of some ultimate "deductive system" or not. I, however, also agree that although the proof of the existence of such a system will probably never materialise, I don't believe such a system will ever exist (it is only theology that brazens me to make such a bold statement). After I take a look at that book it may be possible for me to add more of my opinions on the subject, but feel free to make any other suggestions of anything that needs to be added (feel free to formulate it yourself if you have the time).

Concerning the definition, I am a little at a loss right now as to what to do with it. You are the only person to have made any criticism of it. So, if I place it straight in the article, somebody will just revert the article back. Do you know of anybody else who could engage with us and give us some sort of an academic majority on the issue? Krea 14:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It generally works better to nail the problems with an existing article or part of an article in the discussion page before you do anything else.

It can be very difficult to know who you are arguing with. What happens if you get into an argument with a physics professor who has physics publications all over the place? Your problem with what he has writen may be simply that it is unclear. He will be convinced that his is the right view. Actually, what the guy intends to convey almost certainly is correct. He may not listen to your suggestions for changes because he views himself as the professional.

There is a real reason for Wikipedia to insist that everything that goes into its articles be verifiable -- there is simply no way to know that the person who signs "A. Einstein" is really qualified to give an authoritative statement. On the other hand, if John Spavendhorst has written an article for one of the best physics journsls and it has been published, that will mean that it has been peer reviewed, i.e., a bunch of other physicists at the tops of their games have gone over it and haven't been able to find any mistakes. (There is the famous case of a self-educated gentleman from India who wrote mathematics articles of great value that were published despite the fact that he was completely unknown. It didn't matter that he was an unknown because his math was stunning and it was correct.)

One way for you to procede would be to try to make a version of the L & M material that doesn't use any specialist vocabulary that it does not either explain or else provide wiki links for. Then you might be able to use your version as either an article in itself or (if it is short enough) as a substitute for whatever you find fault with. You would automatically have everything you need referenced. I think the reasoning that L & M provide is very tight. It would be a worthwhile service to, e.g., freshman physics students, to provide their account minus the "legalese." (It always amazes me how somebody like Einstein or Heisenberg can write without condescending to the reader and without losing the reader in "insider speak".) Many writers do not share their awareness of the way that the non-specialist reader will come to a piece of technical writing. P0M 04:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanujan certainly was a great loss to the field of Number Theory. By "academic", I mean it to be based on ones words, not on their reputation, which is why I will always keep myself anonymous: it is only what I say that matters, not what I may have said. I discovered that the library is not staffed on the weekends so I couldn't take the book with me. However, I did have a quick read of the first chapter. Although it was a very cursory read, my first impression was that they were essentially discussing the association of mathematics with experiment (Bamberg & Sternberg has a good section on this about affine transformations). I'm sure I missed out many important subtleties so I will take the book out on monday for further analysis. I don't think they discussed what I would really like to be said: they made the assumption from the start that observation and experiment are key (implicitly I think). I wish to justify this assumption by discovering what restrictions this makes on a more general definition of physics. Krea 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Article WIP proposal[edit]

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krea. I like your suggestion for a list of reasons for and against a certain course of action. But given the sluggishness of things, and the continuing fragmentation of the effort, I have boldly and literally ruled a line, and put a definite proposal for consideration. Please don't take offence. It just seems to me that we have to push things along, now. I'm all for discussion and patience, as I have said a few times. But things were simply not happening. It remains to be seen whether they will happen now, or whether our little group will stay listless and vacillating. Noetica 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Lead proposal[edit]

I thought your physics lead suggestion was by far the best. However, it pains me to see that the other proposals seem to be winning. I have several graduate degrees in physics but I almost never edit physics articles (not sure why, although I have once in a while edited the Simple Wikipedia physics articles, which can be pretty challenging with a vocabulary of 850 words). I could give a very detailed analysis, but it probably is not worth clogging your page with it!--Filll 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I as well think that the lead should be like an abstract. Not necessarily precise and covering every special case and nuance, but easy to read for the general reader, and then leading them in if they want (most will not read past the first paragraph or two). I have no problem with an "abstract" and then an introduction section, although some think this violates WP rules. I also think that the others seem sort of amateurish. It is true that psychology is at its heart, just physics, but I am a bit uncomfortable at trying to shove that at the casual reader in the first few sentences. I did combine all 3 in an effort to include the relevant information but keep the lead very simple. I put it in the discussion page. I also think that the first thing a person learning physics should know is that it is about matter (which of course includes energy, but you dont need to say that immediately) and how it interacts. That is what I was taught. It covers things like space (where the matter is) and time (change to the matter etc) and forces and constituents of matter etc. I do not know why they want to define all of science= physics immediately for the casual reader, even if it is true in a sense. This can come later. Also the scientific method definition etc can come later, in the introduction or in a link. I had a lot more thouhts when I wrote my synthesis of the 3, but it has been very quiet for weeks on end and no progress has been made. So I am just waiting to see what happens next.--Filll 17:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we seemed to have at least partly revived the page from its torpor. Now if I can only get someone to accept the role as moderator. I hope to get someone with a better command of English than me, or most physicists frankly. I hope to get someone who is a nonexpert, so they can bring a fresh perspective and hopefully have less of a predefined POV. I hope to find someone whose understanding of physics is somewhat limited, so they can guide the text towards accessibility. I also hope to persuade someone who has some background in science, so they are familiar with at least some of the traditions and procedures of science, and also can help us avoid the "physics-conceit" of over-emphasizing that ALL of science is physics, and implying that all sciences, including anthropology, psychology, geology, sociology, etc are just subfields of physics. Although it is definitely true that if we knew physics well enough, we would probably be able to do incredible sociology, it is not helpful at this time in human history, probably confusing to people who are just learning about physics, and undoubtedly potentially offensive to people trained as sociologists.--Filll 14:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jellybeans[edit]

You have been awarded these **Jelly Beans** from -The Doctor- Please, enjoy them.

Here are some Jelly beans for you. I love jelly beans as they have sugar in them and most people love sugar. But on the other hand just receiving somthing from somone else just makes you happy and also just giving this to you makes me happy. I hope to spread the jelly beans all over Wikipedia, so here, you can have this lot. Please enjoy them. (I like the lime ones.)

Editors need a bit of a sugar high too.

An apple a day keeps -The Doctor- away. Or does it! ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation section for Physics/wip?[edit]

Thanks for your thoughtful note at my page, Krea. Be assured that I do check developments at Physics/wip quite often. But I really did give up on it, you know. Frankly, there is still not enough meeting in the middle, or joint unified effort in general. For example: The early moderator left (having worked in a particular style and at a particular pace that not everyone found robust enough, I fear). I then came in with the suggestion that a philosopher was needed. There are broad foundational issues at stake that exercise people, I thought, but that most editors have simply not the philosophical competence to think through. Hinc illae lacrimae. My coming back to make such a comment after a long absence might have been thought worthy of note, and of some sort of consideration. But no: there was just one polite response, and that was dismissive enough. Will I oversee a Foundations section, as you now suggest? Let me think about it. I'll have no time for any sustained contribution for a week or so. I'll watch developments, and then wade back into the fray if I find that my efforts would have any chance of making a useful difference. OK? Meanwhile, I admire your own perseverance and accommodating attitude. –Noetica 07:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, thanks for your care in discerning and making explicit issues that affect the progress of Physics/wip. I continue to be impressed with the qualities you bring to your work at Wikipedia. Let's leave things for now, since we are both preoccupied with other things. I'll watch, but not act yet. Later! All the best to you. –Noetica 21:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Philosophy and physics[edit]

Hello-I didn't want your question to seem like nobody at philosophy cares-I think nobody knew how to respond. From my view, the best relationshp is the rational inquiry into the question of what is the nature of existence. That is the first paragraph. Richiar 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krea, I've posted some remarks on philosophy and physics on the talk page of the "Philosophy" article. GV, 13 july 2007.

I haven't given up on it.[edit]

Krea,

I haven't given up. What I enjoy most about Wikipedia is the cooperation, everyone contributing. It just isn't as rewarding to work on a page alone. However, to just place the article on the Talk:Physics page without the rest of the editors agreeing to see it there may seem a futile action to the rest of the editors. What would be the rationale for the rest of the editors? What benefit would they get from seeing it on the Talk page? Best, --Ancheta Wis 04:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some approaches might be:

"The development page wants you". User:Fuzheado (Andrew Lih), an American academic who currently lives in Beijing China, believes that an article needs a critical mass of editors, in order to 'succeed' or 'live'. Lih's studies of Wikipedia suggest an average value for this critical number is 20, based on his statistics. Perhaps that might be an approach to the editors of the Physics page.

Continue to work on the development article in isolation. This may catch the attention of previous editors such as User:Noetica.

Use a distinct thought-style on the development page such as "Bored with the physics page? You can help to improve it. ..."

Use 'Did you know that ...' as a lead.

Simply state the problem (We need more editors) and ask for ideas on the Talk:Physics page.

Bring up issues on the Talk:Physics page and work on the Physics page directly. I have to admit that my personal motivation for attempting to improve the physics page was that it is boring to read, for me. The development page has attempted to address this, and your writing is definitely not boring. But when I attempted to add surprising or interesting facts to the development page, the response was nil, except for you and Noetica.

Use the development page to form the words, invite comment by writing a precis for the Talk:Physics page, set a timeline, and make the edit to the Physics page, directly, one section at a time. "We propose to alter section ...". That ought to gain attention, at least. But probably that approach will need the buy-in of the existing editors. I remember there is at least one editor who is dead-set against the content of the development page.

--Ancheta Wis 11:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that GNixon, PaddyLeahy and others might be agreeable to a combined contribution to the Physics page. Certainly I could help out with the citations and perhaps more images and you have a lot of text to contribute. Perhaps if the lot of us each propose an item, wait for agreement (at least 2 agree), discuss (but not place the text on the talk page, leave that for the article page itself), then place the changes, on the page, that might increase the editorship for the Physics page. --Ancheta Wis 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write to Talk:Physics to propose a new arrangement, I will put it on my watchlist and we all can work together. --Ancheta Wis 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physics[edit]

Hi, Krea. Thanks for responding to my comments at physics. I haven't had a chance to read all of them, but I wanted to say first that I hope my comments aren't so critical they'll put you off. I haven't had much time to work constructively on the recent changes, so I'm doing the easier thing---pointing out problems. If anything I say comes off rudely, please assume that wasn't my intention, and accept my apologies. Cheers, Gnixon 03:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unsourced, original research, no textbook[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Relativistic Doppler effect, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having untextbooked your edit and for having provided a source. Remember, it's not up to others to find sources for your edits, but up to you. Good job. - DVdm (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you think some more referencing is needed? I might add those Landau references anyway; although I don't think it's strictly necessary, I guess more is always better. Krea (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you went ahead with the Landau ref. Excellent. I also made a (little) comment to your message at my talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA notificaiton[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Krea. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Krea. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Krea. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Race position[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Race position requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.
SSSB (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this. I moved it from you user space to the above location without realising you had already copy and pasted it elsewhere. Therefore I have nominated the one I moved for deletion.
SSSB (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: Ah ok. I decided to add F1 to the name just so that it doesn't get caught in somebody's complaint about it being too general a name. I've also made a TODO list so that we can keep track of what has been done and what remains at Template_talk:F1_race_position. Krea (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks![edit]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]