Freedom of Science | Home | ___ | Densytics | Polls
Lawyers v. Physicists
I would recommend physicists friends to read this Supreme Court transcript from February 21, 2007 for the case Microsoft v. AT&T.
Below are some of the familiar physics concepts discussed by Justices and the lawyers arguing the case (numbers are how many times they are mentioned).
The participants are all lawyers and they are discussing, essentially, what matter is.
How does lawyers arguing about matter compare to physicists arguing about matter?
What is not surprising to observe for me is that lawyers' attitude is more scientific than the attitude of physicists.
Let me explain.
Physicists are dogmatic Newtonian priests who believe without questioning Newtonian atomic materialism.
For physicists, it is given that the world is atomic and it is materialistic because this was what Newton believed based on his religious beliefs. For physicists, atomic materialist nature of the world cannot be questioned because this is the religious doctrine of Newton. No physicist can question Newtonian doctrine without endangering his or her career.
Therefore physicists can never investigate fundamentals by using physics.
Physicists already know by their Newtonian doctrine the fundamental properties of nature: Newton told them that absolute matter exists and the world is materialistic.
All physicists can do is to observe motion and call it matter because Newtonian doctrine does not let them to see the world as motion.
Another important difference between lawyers and physicists is that lawyers think for themselves! Physicists on the other hand argue by theories and by authority.
Physicists argue by throwing at each other meaningless black box theories. So, physicists would say "according to General Relativity…" or "according to String Theory…" or "according to the Principle of Equivalence…." but they never actually think for themselves.
Lawyers on the other hand debate the issue at its most fundamental level. Lawyers don't debate old and stale clichés. Physicists do. Very interesting.
As the result of their dogmatic Newtonism and their unquestioning belief in Newtonian atomic materialism physicists invented a zoo of fundamental building blocks of matter even though no particle accelerator has ever observed any building blocks of matter.
Please read the arguments in Microsoft v. AT&T. Obviously, the participants are also biased by Newtonian atomic materialism because Newtonism has become a standard feature of human mind and they talk about "physical world" as opposed to software or intangibles. But unlike physicists lawyers are open minded and they perceive that code can be a thing and standard is the thing.
I haven't yet studied it in depth myself. These are just preliminary thoughts after reading it once. So read the arguments and please let me know what you think.