ASSumptions of science
in [Physics]
|
From: Huang on 12 Apr 2010 23:05 On Apr 12, 1:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 11, 3:54 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 4/11/10 11:46 AM, Huang wrote: > > > > > Science draws conclusions based on calculations using on primary tool > > > > which is mathematics. > > > > Even your first sentence is flawed -- Look up "science". > > > I was not trying to redefine science, Sam. Just making a simple > > observation. > > > Science and mathematics proceed this way. > > Assume [a] exists, then you can say that [b] [c] [d] exist, and so > > on....and that there are logical relationships among these things. But > > you must start by ASSuming existence. You start with "that which is", > > and you and with "that which is". Everything is proveable. > > > There is no reason why that should be the only way to do science. > > > 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. > > The difficulty with this scheme is that not everything conceivable > will produce the outcome we desire. For example, it is possible to > imagine things such that the laws of physics are much different than > what we've discovered so far. And we can come up with a wholly > different physics that is based on this alternate set of assumptions. > But if you actually tried to build a device or something useful that > would be based on that alternate physics, it's our experience that > such devices do not work -- that is, they will not actually produce an > desired outcome in the set of circumstances created by them. > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Actually, it is quite usefull to refer back to the allegory of the cave. Physics based on mathematics seems to ignore Plato completely. We see things and we take them as existent, we model them for what "they are", based on the fact that they "appear to exist", and so we model them as if indeed they do. But we have no proof that anything exists at all. If I see a truck, or a rock, or a planet, I might suppose instead that "maybe it exists" because it appears to do so but I really have no proof. I dont really know that it exists because it is very likely just a projection on the wall of a cave. So, I am much safer saying that indeed "maybe it exists" and then proceed along those lines. But to say "maybe it exists" is to acknowledge what I call existential indeterminacy. And of course mathematics does not embrace existential indeterminacy. That is why I say that Physics which is based exclusively on mathematics is an affront to Plato.
From: john on 13 Apr 2010 02:07 On Apr 12, 9:05 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 1:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 11, 3:54 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 4/11/10 11:46 AM, Huang wrote: > > > > > > Science draws conclusions based on calculations using on primary tool > > > > > which is mathematics. > > > > > Even your first sentence is flawed -- Look up "science". > > > > I was not trying to redefine science, Sam. Just making a simple > > > observation. > > > > Science and mathematics proceed this way. > > > Assume [a] exists, then you can say that [b] [c] [d] exist, and so > > > on....and that there are logical relationships among these things. But > > > you must start by ASSuming existence. You start with "that which is", > > > and you and with "that which is". Everything is proveable. > > > > There is no reason why that should be the only way to do science. > > > > 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. > > > The difficulty with this scheme is that not everything conceivable > > will produce the outcome we desire. For example, it is possible to > > imagine things such that the laws of physics are much different than > > what we've discovered so far. And we can come up with a wholly > > different physics that is based on this alternate set of assumptions. > > But if you actually tried to build a device or something useful that > > would be based on that alternate physics, it's our experience that > > such devices do not work -- that is, they will not actually produce an > > desired outcome in the set of circumstances created by them. > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Actually, it is quite usefull to refer back to the allegory of the > cave. > > Physics based on mathematics seems to ignore Plato completely. We see > things and we take them as existent, we model them for what "they > are", based on the fact that they "appear to exist", and so we model > them as if indeed they do. > > But we have no proof that anything exists at all. > > If I see a truck, or a rock, or a planet, I might suppose instead that > "maybe it exists" because it appears to do so but I really have no > proof. I dont really know that it exists because it is very likely > just a projection on the wall of a cave. So, I am much safer saying > that indeed "maybe it exists" and then proceed along those lines. > > But to say "maybe it exists" is to acknowledge what I call existential > indeterminacy. And of course mathematics does not embrace existential > indeterminacy. > > That is why I say that Physics which is based exclusively on > mathematics is an affront to Plato.- They say Dark Matter exists based on no direct observation at all. It exists solely because they need it to exist. That's pretty good! And people believe them! Cool. john
From: PD on 13 Apr 2010 09:31 On Apr 12, 10:05 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 1:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 11, 3:54 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 4/11/10 11:46 AM, Huang wrote: > > > > > > Science draws conclusions based on calculations using on primary tool > > > > > which is mathematics. > > > > > Even your first sentence is flawed -- Look up "science". > > > > I was not trying to redefine science, Sam. Just making a simple > > > observation. > > > > Science and mathematics proceed this way. > > > Assume [a] exists, then you can say that [b] [c] [d] exist, and so > > > on....and that there are logical relationships among these things. But > > > you must start by ASSuming existence. You start with "that which is", > > > and you and with "that which is". Everything is proveable. > > > > There is no reason why that should be the only way to do science. > > > > 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. > > > The difficulty with this scheme is that not everything conceivable > > will produce the outcome we desire. For example, it is possible to > > imagine things such that the laws of physics are much different than > > what we've discovered so far. And we can come up with a wholly > > different physics that is based on this alternate set of assumptions. > > But if you actually tried to build a device or something useful that > > would be based on that alternate physics, it's our experience that > > such devices do not work -- that is, they will not actually produce an > > desired outcome in the set of circumstances created by them. > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Actually, it is quite usefull to refer back to the allegory of the > cave. > > Physics based on mathematics seems to ignore Plato completely. We see > things and we take them as existent, we model them for what "they > are", based on the fact that they "appear to exist", and so we model > them as if indeed they do. > > But we have no proof that anything exists at all. > > If I see a truck, or a rock, or a planet, I might suppose instead that > "maybe it exists" because it appears to do so but I really have no > proof. I dont really know that it exists because it is very likely > just a projection on the wall of a cave. So, I am much safer saying > that indeed "maybe it exists" and then proceed along those lines. Please reread what I said. The point of science is not to determine whether what's behind the shadows really exists or not. All that matters is that if you do so-and-so in such-and-such circumstances, then the shadows will reliably and predictably produce a certain desired result. And we can build devices that produce those desired shadows. It really DOES NOT MATTER whether there is something beyond the shadows, since it is only the shadows revealed by our senses that we want to control and manipulate. And because it does not matter, then it doesn't do any good to say, maybe it doesn't exist after all. > > But to say "maybe it exists" is to acknowledge what I call existential > indeterminacy. And of course mathematics does not embrace existential > indeterminacy. > > That is why I say that Physics which is based exclusively on > mathematics is an affront to Plato.
From: PD on 13 Apr 2010 09:33 On Apr 13, 1:07 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Apr 12, 9:05 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 1:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 11, 3:54 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 4/11/10 11:46 AM, Huang wrote: > > > > > > > Science draws conclusions based on calculations using on primary tool > > > > > > which is mathematics. > > > > > > Even your first sentence is flawed -- Look up "science". > > > > > I was not trying to redefine science, Sam. Just making a simple > > > > observation. > > > > > Science and mathematics proceed this way. > > > > Assume [a] exists, then you can say that [b] [c] [d] exist, and so > > > > on....and that there are logical relationships among these things. But > > > > you must start by ASSuming existence. You start with "that which is", > > > > and you and with "that which is". Everything is proveable. > > > > > There is no reason why that should be the only way to do science. > > > > > 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. > > > > The difficulty with this scheme is that not everything conceivable > > > will produce the outcome we desire. For example, it is possible to > > > imagine things such that the laws of physics are much different than > > > what we've discovered so far. And we can come up with a wholly > > > different physics that is based on this alternate set of assumptions. > > > But if you actually tried to build a device or something useful that > > > would be based on that alternate physics, it's our experience that > > > such devices do not work -- that is, they will not actually produce an > > > desired outcome in the set of circumstances created by them. > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Actually, it is quite usefull to refer back to the allegory of the > > cave. > > > Physics based on mathematics seems to ignore Plato completely. We see > > things and we take them as existent, we model them for what "they > > are", based on the fact that they "appear to exist", and so we model > > them as if indeed they do. > > > But we have no proof that anything exists at all. > > > If I see a truck, or a rock, or a planet, I might suppose instead that > > "maybe it exists" because it appears to do so but I really have no > > proof. I dont really know that it exists because it is very likely > > just a projection on the wall of a cave. So, I am much safer saying > > that indeed "maybe it exists" and then proceed along those lines. > > > But to say "maybe it exists" is to acknowledge what I call existential > > indeterminacy. And of course mathematics does not embrace existential > > indeterminacy. > > > That is why I say that Physics which is based exclusively on > > mathematics is an affront to Plato.- > > They say Dark Matter exists based on > no direct observation at all. It exists > solely because they need it to exist. > That's pretty good! And people believe them! No, they don't actually say that, John. What they say is that IF our theory of gravity is correct, THEN there should be dark matter. But this is not to believed until there is independent confirmation of dark matter other than from gravitational evidence. That's why there are direct search experiments going on now. This is how science works. It says IF this model is correct, then there are certain implications of that, and for some of them we do not have good experimental evidence for them yet. And so that compels an experimental test to look for that evidence, and thereby we test the model. > Cool. > > john
From: Huang on 13 Apr 2010 09:46
On Apr 13, 8:31 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 10:05 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 1:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 11, 3:54 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 4/11/10 11:46 AM, Huang wrote: > > > > > > > Science draws conclusions based on calculations using on primary tool > > > > > > which is mathematics. > > > > > > Even your first sentence is flawed -- Look up "science". > > > > > I was not trying to redefine science, Sam. Just making a simple > > > > observation. > > > > > Science and mathematics proceed this way. > > > > Assume [a] exists, then you can say that [b] [c] [d] exist, and so > > > > on....and that there are logical relationships among these things. But > > > > you must start by ASSuming existence. You start with "that which is", > > > > and you and with "that which is". Everything is proveable. > > > > > There is no reason why that should be the only way to do science. > > > > > 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. > > > > The difficulty with this scheme is that not everything conceivable > > > will produce the outcome we desire. For example, it is possible to > > > imagine things such that the laws of physics are much different than > > > what we've discovered so far. And we can come up with a wholly > > > different physics that is based on this alternate set of assumptions. > > > But if you actually tried to build a device or something useful that > > > would be based on that alternate physics, it's our experience that > > > such devices do not work -- that is, they will not actually produce an > > > desired outcome in the set of circumstances created by them. > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Actually, it is quite usefull to refer back to the allegory of the > > cave. > > > Physics based on mathematics seems to ignore Plato completely. We see > > things and we take them as existent, we model them for what "they > > are", based on the fact that they "appear to exist", and so we model > > them as if indeed they do. > > > But we have no proof that anything exists at all. > > > If I see a truck, or a rock, or a planet, I might suppose instead that > > "maybe it exists" because it appears to do so but I really have no > > proof. I dont really know that it exists because it is very likely > > just a projection on the wall of a cave. So, I am much safer saying > > that indeed "maybe it exists" and then proceed along those lines. > > Please reread what I said. The point of science is not to determine > whether what's behind the shadows really exists or not. All that > matters is that if you do so-and-so in such-and-such circumstances, > then the shadows will reliably and predictably produce a certain > desired result. And we can build devices that produce those desired > shadows. > > It really DOES NOT MATTER whether there is something beyond the > shadows, since it is only the shadows revealed by our senses that we > want to control and manipulate. > > And because it does not matter, then it doesn't do any good to say, > maybe it doesn't exist after all. I actually agree with this with one caveat. Using mathematics to model thing implies existence of those things you are modelling. By using mathematics you are peeking behind the shadows and implying "what is". This is because mathematics is based exclusively on the existent, and so there is a subtle implication which is inherited by every application of mathematics - even in physics. What John said about Dark Matter is interesting because it seems that this matter does not exist, or cannot be observed. I would -never- make models based on nonexistent things. But saying "maybe it exists" is a different approach. A different approach to probabilistic reasoning. Regardless, if I use mathematics, and if I insist on using mathematics for some physical model, then my model will inherit all of the subtle implications regarding existence upon which mathematics is based. I feel it is better to embrace Plato and to say that : We can model things as if they exist, and we can model things as if existentially indeterminate, both modelling approaches are equivalent because they produce identical numbers, and we still dont know what it actually causing those shadows nor can we really, and this is more evidence that Plato was even right, even today, he could have never envisioned how right he was. Insisting on mathematics is like peeking behind the shadows, it implies that we know something about nature which we really dont and cannot know. |