[FRIAM] invoking quantum woo (was Book publishing advice needed)

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

Jon, 

I get so caught up in correspondence in the morning that it's pushing one
oclock and I have not had breakfast yet.  

Little as I know about Newton, I do think Newton's mechanics is a model, and
a rich one at that.  
"F=ma" is not a model.  

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 11:40 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] invoking quantum woo (was Book publishing advice
needed)

Nick,

It has been said that Newton's mechanics "explain nothing and describe
everything", where Leibniz's monads "explain everything and describe
nothing". With regards to Newton, this position seems a bit strong to me.
His *description* of falling bodies describes (in a forward direction, say)
by assuming the geometry of the greeks and tracing the paths of bodies. With
a beer or two in me, I could argue that his *explanation* of falling bodies
explains (in the reverse direction) by comparing the trajectory of his
falling body to the trajectory of our own Earth and moon and then claim that
this is *because* Earths and moons are like Euclid's point and connected by
Euclid's line. Is this just bad thinking?

Jon



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/