David Suzuki and Applied Physics vs. Theoretical Physics

[Work Hard Play Hard]

Another thread reminded me of this. Sometime, probably in the 70's Suzuki said something like this, for something to be "real" it has to have a least one piece of retrievable information. One example he gave that I remember was a point in space. I remember this example because of his explanation. The point may be absolutely nothing but as long as it can be shown to exist within a dependable and representative coordinate system, that point in space is there. I don't remember exactly how it put it but he was getting at had to do with possible points in other theoretical places that lack a coordinate system location.

Theoretical physics was something like this. Information that can't be proven to be associated to a "this and only this," or anything that doesn't have retrievable information is from the realm of theoretical physics.

He also said "effects" are not information. Again I don't remember exactly how he put it but his example was gravity. All the information associated to gravity is by effect which makes the true nature of gravity theoretical. His point being theoretical doesn't always mean inaccessible or unusable when effects are consistent, reliable and measurable.

It's the retrievable information that sticks with me the most. I'm wondering if I remember this right or if in the last 40+ years anything has changed?

 

[DrClaude]

For one, David Suzuki is not a physicist. For two, we don't do philosophy at PF.

Thread closed.