ASSumptions of science
in [Physics]
|
From: Huang on 11 Apr 2010 23:06 On Apr 11, 6:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/11/10 3:54 PM, Huang wrote: > > > If I start instead by saying "what might be", and building up a system > > of things which also "might be", and all of these things are > > consistent with respect to each other, then you have achieved the same > > thing that mathematics did with some fundamentally different > > ASSumptions. > > Let's say that that Earth's water came from comets. Seems logical. > To test that theory the ration of heavy water in comets compared > to the ratio on earth. > > In the comets analyzed so far, the proportions of these two kinds > of water don't match the composition of water in our oceans. > > One of the key things that every scientist keeps in mind, is you > should never fall in love with your theory. So it's an idea, it's > a hypothesis, it fits all the known facts. But it has not yet been > proven, and we must be willing to give it up and modify it if it > is not proven. But we will learn something in doing so. > > The theory is only good if it make predictions and the predictions > are supported by observations. When the observations contradict the > theory, it is wrong. Mathematicians would say something like this, "Water comes form comets, therefore, using logic, inductive, deductive etc....then you would expect [a], [a], [c] etc". Water either comes from comets or it does not. There is no partial truth in math, either it does or it does not. You test your hypothesis and move on to the next thing. They can get around things in this case by making continual refinements to their models. Some water comes from comets, some comes from synthesis, some from radiodecay, etc. But they will never be able to wrap their minds around a possible 3rd state of truth. You have [1] Yes, you have [2] No, and you have [3] Maybe. They will insist on modelling things using Yes and No, but they will never accept that modelling things using Maybe is just as valid as modelling with Yes and No. And that is what it boils down to. I really dont have a physical theory. I have a philosophy which is similar to mathematics on a fundamental level, but not the same as mathematics. It is not science, but nor is mathematics. It is a tool for conducting formal reasoning and modelling as in physics and elsewhere. Physicists are always saying things like "if" and "maybe", but mathematicians dont work like that. You either prove something new or just shut the hell up - that is how they work. I dont blame them. But there ARE valid ways to model things using "if" and "maybe", and the results of such modelling methodologies yields numbers which are identical to what you would get if you had used mathematics in the first place. > Kepler had hoped that Brahe's data would verify that the orbital > path of Mars was circular... but the data showed that the orbital > path was elliptical. Choosing what the observation say over one's > pet theory is what science is all about. That is the heart of science. And then again....given enough time the orbit may actually evolve into a circular orbit. And you cannot say that it never will, because it is subjected to random impacts - it actually "could" happen. And that's the problem with science. We want to know "what is". Just like a mathematician. You cannot be contented by a "maybe", you want to know "what is". But you can do science based completely on maybes, and the numbers are all the same.
From: Huang on 12 Apr 2010 08:23 On Apr 11, 10:06 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 11, 6:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 4/11/10 3:54 PM, Huang wrote: > > > > If I start instead by saying "what might be", and building up a system > > > of things which also "might be", and all of these things are > > > consistent with respect to each other, then you have achieved the same > > > thing that mathematics did with some fundamentally different > > > ASSumptions. > > > Let's say that that Earth's water came from comets. Seems logical. > > To test that theory the ration of heavy water in comets compared > > to the ratio on earth. > > > In the comets analyzed so far, the proportions of these two kinds > > of water don't match the composition of water in our oceans. > > > One of the key things that every scientist keeps in mind, is you > > should never fall in love with your theory. So it's an idea, it's > > a hypothesis, it fits all the known facts. But it has not yet been > > proven, and we must be willing to give it up and modify it if it > > is not proven. But we will learn something in doing so. > > > The theory is only good if it make predictions and the predictions > > are supported by observations. When the observations contradict the > > theory, it is wrong. > > Mathematicians would say something like this, "Water comes form > comets, therefore, using logic, inductive, deductive etc....then you > would expect [a], [a], [c] etc". Water either comes from comets or it > does not. There is no partial truth in math, either it does or it does > not. You test your hypothesis and move on to the next thing. > > They can get around things in this case by making continual > refinements to their models. Some water comes from comets, some comes > from synthesis, some from radiodecay, etc. > > But they will never be able to wrap their minds around a possible 3rd > state of truth. You have [1] Yes, you have [2] No, and you have [3] > Maybe. They will insist on modelling things using Yes and No, but they > will never accept that modelling things using Maybe is just as valid > as modelling with Yes and No. And that is what it boils down to. > > I really dont have a physical theory. I have a philosophy which is > similar to mathematics on a fundamental level, but not the same as > mathematics. It is not science, but nor is mathematics. It is a tool > for conducting formal reasoning and modelling as in physics and > elsewhere. > > Physicists are always saying things like "if" and "maybe", but > mathematicians dont work like that. You either prove something new or > just shut the hell up - that is how they work. I dont blame them. But > there ARE valid ways to model things using "if" and "maybe", and the > results of such modelling methodologies yields numbers which are > identical to what you would get if you had used mathematics in the > first place. > > > Kepler had hoped that Brahe's data would verify that the orbital > > path of Mars was circular... but the data showed that the orbital > > path was elliptical. Choosing what the observation say over one's > > pet theory is what science is all about. That is the heart of science. > > And then again....given enough time the orbit may actually evolve into > a circular orbit. And you cannot say that it never will, because it is > subjected to random impacts - it actually "could" happen. And that's > the problem with science. We want to know "what is". Just like a > mathematician. You cannot be contented by a "maybe", you want to know > "what is". But you can do science based completely on maybes, and the > numbers are all the same.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Then again, there are other ways to view Kepler. First, you have to ask just what is a planet. From my understanding the definition of "planet" is very far from meeting the criteria of what a mathematician would consider a "well defined" definition. In fact, all physical objects suffer from this because of the "Ship of Theseus" argument, you dont really know exactly when Mars became Mars, at some point in time it was dust in a protodisc during formation of solar system - at that time was it Mars ? If yes - then the geometry of it's orbit is not such an easy answer. Mars, over time, has mapped a trajectory which might _resemble_ something like a chaotic attractor through 4D spacetime. When we look at Mars certainly we are seeing something like a Poincare section of a much larger process. Suppose it's trajectory is actually an attractor. The question of whether it is circular becomes a question of probability & dynamics. Whats worse, if Mars trajectory is indeed a perfect ellipse, then it can be contracted along it's major axis to create a circle. You can cause such a contraction by accelerating yourself in a suitable frame of reference, and so to some observers it's orbit will be a circle. Not trying to be quizzical or quarrel about it, and I really dont think that it shows any type of weakness in science or even empiricism. I just feel that determinacy and indeterminacy have not been given equal appreciation.
From: Sam Wormley on 12 Apr 2010 09:20 On 4/11/10 10:06 PM, Huang wrote: > Mathematicians would say something like this, "Water comes form > comets, therefore, using logic, inductive, deductive etc....then you > would expect [a], [a], [c] etc". Water either comes from comets or it > does not. There is no partial truth in math, either it does or it does > not. You test your hypothesis and move on to the next thing. > Mathematics is not science--some of earth's water undoubtedly came from comets, but the data indicates that most of earth's water was already here as part of planet formation. One needs to learn when appropriate mathematics applies to physical processes.
From: Sam Wormley on 12 Apr 2010 09:21 On 4/12/10 7:23 AM, Huang wrote: > Then again, there are other ways to view Kepler. > > First, you have to ask just what is a planet. From my understanding > the definition of "planet" is very far from meeting the criteria of > what a mathematician would consider a "well defined" definition. There was no ambiguity about Mars and Kepler's work in determining the orbit of Mars about the Sun.
From: PD on 12 Apr 2010 14:41
On Apr 11, 11:46 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Science draws conclusions based on calculations using on primary tool > which is mathematics. All of mathematics is based on relationships > among abstract things (such as numbers etc) which are said to exist. > > If you assume existence then you have all of these logical > relationships and everything works out nicely. > > You are predicating everything on reasoning which tries to understand > "what is", or what exists. You assume existence, and conclusions can > be drawn based on those assumptions. Fine. > > But that is not the only way to reason. > > You can devise a tool for modelling which does not assume that it is > actually known that anything exists at all. You can say "I dont know > if it exists or not, but if it does exist then other conclusions can > be drawn...", etc. > > You do not need to model things based on what is known to be. You can > model things on what might be, and if all of these "maybes" are > consistent then you will have achieved the same thing that mathematics > has achieved. > > To not recognize this - to me - is silly, ridiculous, and absurd. OK, but it's largely useless to take that stance. The objective of science is to be able to accurately predict outcomes when certain circumstances are set up. In this context, it actually doesn't matter whether the outcomes are "real" or only artifacts of our senses. The *value* of being able to do this is that we can then exploit the rules that allow us those predictions, to create devices that work for our benefit. In those devices, we create certain circumstances such that we know what the outcome will be, and we desire that outcome. Again, it doesn't actually matter whether those outcomes desired are "real" or only artifacts of our senses. All that matters is that we desire that outcome and have been reliably able to produce it. PD |