On Friday 2008 November 28 15:28, lee wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 04:13:21PM -0500, Andrew Reid wrote: > > On Friday 28 November 2008 14:10, lee wrote: > > > Is it even possible to measure a mere potential? > > > > You mean, in principle? Of course. > > It takes energy to defect particles or to change the shape of a > crystal, doesn't it? You would be observing/measuring effects and > *deduce* that there is a potential, but that is different from > observing/measuring the potential itself, isn't it? Yes, it takes energy. It doesn't take current. Yes, you would be observing/measuring effects and deducing that there is a potential. Which is for all intents and purposes observing the potential. It's similar to the way your retina observes/measures photons and then causes a chain of electro-chemical events to be observed/measured by your optic nerve and brain matter and your mind deduces that there is text on your monitor while your read this message. No, it's not different in any meaningful way. Observing that the top of my table doesn't fall to the floor *is* an observation that confirms the existence of "legs". "Legs" are things that exert force on table tops to keep them away from the floor. BTW, I agree a bit with an earlier poster that you a being a bit of a twat. This mailing list isn't really appropriate for epistemological discussions. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss03@volumehost.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/
Attachment:
pgpmVw_xnzxgI.pgp
Description: PGP signature