[FRIAM] When are telic attributions appropriate in physical descriptions?

[glen]

I wouldn't call this "telic language". But if it is, then yes, this language is fine. Telicity is about the finality or what will obtain. The conservation of angular momentum will obtain, be the Truth. No other behavior is possible. No other final state is obtainable. (And "final" can mean either t+∞ or t+ε, forever or the next delta.) So telic language indicating that will be what obtains is appropriate.

The same End applies in the discussion of the wiggle of "relative motion". Whatever wiggling the machine does, it will end up within the constraint that is the law of conservation. "End", here, implies no intenTion or agency. It's a description of the endpoint, the final condition/constraint that obtains.

Constraints like this can be achieved either through the dynamics of the system. E.g. a rock can't do math. Or through a perfect controller controlling an open-ended generator. When you complain about telic language, it seems like you're assuming the latter, that the motion of the puck could be whatever but it's controlled by "the law". That's not what's being said. What's being said is that the motion of the puck, the generator, is like the rock, it cannot do math. The puck's not capable of violating the law, no controller is needed for the law to obtain.

Of course, if you're role-playing, here, playing the role of your average lay person on the internet who believes in gods or the Law of Attraction, then maybe I'd agree. Language like this that doesn't make clear which way the constraint is achieved (limitations of the physics of motion versus a demon controlling the motion), then our language allows such a person to misunderstand what's being said. The law of angular momentum is a capricious god who might allow some guru to violate the law, but only if the guru sacrifices enough goats. If that's why you're irritated by the language, then i might agree. But on the other hand, why deny the poets their muses? Ambiguity can be a source of beauty.


On 8/6/24 14:09, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Dear Phellow Phriammers,
> 
> Ever since the days of Hywel White (GRHS) I have puzzled over the fact that telic language so often appears in physics discussions.  I used to tease Hywel that Psychology must be the Mother of Physics, because he had to use psychological terms to describe the motion of particles. More recently, I have the same sort of discussions with Stephen Guerin who wants to use telic language concerning the path of photons and least action.  (I hope I have this right, Stephen).  You all have been tempted to think I am just trolling, but I don't think  I am.  I think there may be  places where such descriptions are appropriate.  I do think, for instance, that the relation between the first derivative of a function and any point in that function is analogous to the relation between the motivation of a behavior and the behavior  itself.
> 
> i am back to weather again, after a vacation from it for my obsession with unsuccessful vegetable gardening.   Here is a quote from an Atmospheric Dynamics text which is laying out the Coriolis Force.
> 
> *What happens if we consider the hockey puck moving equator-ward relative to  the rotation of the Earth. In the absence of applied forces it /must/ conserve angular momentum.  Upon being pulled equator-ward in the northern hemisphere the radius of rotation of the puck begins to increase.Consequently, an anti-rotational relative motion/develops/ /in order to/ conserve angular momentum, /[Italics by NST/] *
> 
> In the view of folks on this list, is this an appropriate use of telic language, and why or why not? Stephen has a defensible argument in favor of it's appropriateness, the only such argument I have ever heard.  ( I don[t buy the premises, but the argument is sound)  I am wondering about the rest of you.
> 


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ