about maths: strictly speaking, off topic, but justified.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: doubts about tetrahedral packing in 3D is a solid packing #516 Correcting Math
Next: JSH:Twin primes probability correlation
From: Ste on 14 Mar 2010 13:54 On 14 Mar, 13:39, tonyb <tony.band...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > Apologies in advance for posting somewhat off topic, but I would like > to address this questions to scientists only as I'm not interested in > the view of Phil-Sci students in this particular instance. > > Its a fairly simple one. > > I'm studying physics and am okay with the scientific process - using > maths to describe reality, supported by experiment. But then I start > running into trouble and wanted to hear some other opinions. Which of > this statements would you (as scientists) agree with the most?: > > 1. Mathematics is a language, with some really handy adjectives, which > we use to describe reality. If experiment doesn't contradict the > predictions of this description, then it is a useful description of > reality. Things like electrons are only models and may/may not exist. > Who knows? > > 2. Mathematics is used to describe real external entities. They really > exist, and experimental physics helps us refine our understanding of > these entities, allowing us to build a clearer picture of reality. > > 3. Something else, because I disagree with premise X implied within > the above statements > > Cheers, > TonyB Mathematics is undoubtedly a language.
From: tonyb on 14 Mar 2010 15:34 On 14 Mar, 17:53, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > tonyb wrote: > > [snip] > > > 1. Mathematics is a language, with some really handy adjectives, which > > we use to describe reality. If experiment doesn't contradict the > > predictions of this description, then it is a useful description of > > reality. Things like electrons are only models and may/may not exist. > > Who knows? > > 1) Roll yourself under an e-beam sterilizer and tell us electrons > don't exist. > 2) TV CRTs. > 3) Electron microscopes. > 4) SLAC. > 5) Lightning. > 6) The E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C car. > 7) Electron paramagnetic resonance. > 8) James L. Dye's electride salts; Na dissolved in liquid ammonia. > 9) Woodward-Hoffman rules. > 10) idiot > > > 2. Mathematics is used to describe real external entities. They really > > exist, > > WP Thurston, "Three-dimensional manifolds, Kleinian groups and > hyperbolic geometry," Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 6 357-381 (1982) > > GP Scott, "The geometries of 3-manifolds," Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. > 15(5) 401-487 (1983) > > > and experimental physics helps us refine our understanding of > > these entities, allowing us to build a clearer picture of reality. > > Physical experiment is dead - too much risk. Only theory remains. > Theory always publishes. > > > 3. Something else, because I disagree with premise X implied within > > the above statements > > To criticize is to volunteer. > > idiot > > -- > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm When you say something pertinent to my question, I'll respectfully listen to your opinion.
From: Uncle Al on 14 Mar 2010 16:05 tonyb wrote: > > On 14 Mar, 17:53, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > tonyb wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > 1. Mathematics is a language, with some really handy adjectives, which > > > we use to describe reality. If experiment doesn't contradict the > > > predictions of this description, then it is a useful description of > > > reality. Things like electrons are only models and may/may not exist. > > > Who knows? > > > > 1) Roll yourself under an e-beam sterilizer and tell us electrons > > don't exist. > > 2) TV CRTs. > > 3) Electron microscopes. > > 4) SLAC. > > 5) Lightning. > > 6) The E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C car. > > 7) Electron paramagnetic resonance. > > 8) James L. Dye's electride salts; Na dissolved in liquid ammonia. > > 9) Woodward-Hoffman rules. > > 10) idiot > > > > > 2. Mathematics is used to describe real external entities. They really > > > exist, > > > > WP Thurston, "Three-dimensional manifolds, Kleinian groups and > > hyperbolic geometry," Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 6 357-381 (1982) > > > > GP Scott, "The geometries of 3-manifolds," Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. > > 15(5) 401-487 (1983) > > > > > and experimental physics helps us refine our understanding of > > > these entities, allowing us to build a clearer picture of reality. > > > > Physical experiment is dead - too much risk. Only theory remains. > > Theory always publishes. > > > > > 3. Something else, because I disagree with premise X implied within > > > the above statements > > > > To criticize is to volunteer. > > > > idiot > > > > -- > > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm > > When you say something pertinent to my question, I'll respectfully > listen to your opinion. > > > reality. Things like electrons are only models and may/may not exist. > > > Who knows? > > > > 1) Roll yourself under an e-beam sterilizer and tell us electrons > > don't exist. > > 2) TV CRTs. > > 3) Electron microscopes. > > 4) SLAC. > > 5) Lightning. > > 6) The E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C car. > > 7) Electron paramagnetic resonance. > > 8) James L. Dye's electride salts; Na dissolved in liquid ammonia. > > 9) Woodward-Hoffmann rules. > > 10) idiot idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: tonyb on 14 Mar 2010 18:24 On 14 Mar, 17:19, rabid_fan <r...(a)righthere.net> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 06:39:21 -0700, tonyb wrote: > > > 2. Mathematics is used to describe real external entities. They really > > exist, and experimental physics helps us refine our understanding of > > these entities, allowing us to build a clearer picture of reality. > > "They really exist ..." > > Science, currently, is MATERIALISTIC. It does indeed assume that the > external world has an absolute existence. > Thanks for your answer. Yes, I agree that Science is based on an external material reality - otherwise we couldn't verify experiments. We also seem to agree that mathematics is language with useful properties for describing physics - also useful because we can to a large extent agree on what constitutes correct mathematical reasoning My question is really about evidence and inductive reasoning. For example, we would probably agree that there is a large amount of consistent phenomena/data indicating the existence of the electron, less for a gluon, or a Higgs Boson. In machine learning, questions like this would be stated in terms of Hypothesis X havibg a probability P, based on the likelihood of the data and our model. Yet when we talk about fundamental particles (and processes) it sounds almost as if they are handled (roughly speaking) as either concrete or conjectured (P=1 or P=small) but there doesn't seem to be an attempt to use probability and likelihood (aka Bayesian networks) to quantify this. So my question is really about how we/do we deal with this system of apparent probabilities into our reasoning (personally, as Scientists.)
From: rabid_fan on 14 Mar 2010 19:43
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:24:02 -0700, tonyb wrote: > My question is really about evidence and > inductive reasoning. For example, we would probably agree that there is > a large amount of consistent phenomena/data indicating the existence of > the electron, less for a gluon, or a Higgs Boson. The evidence is incomplete. More will come in the future if our "elected" politicians have the wisdom to divert the resources of our civilization toward continued and expanding research. > In machine learning, questions like this would be stated in terms of > Hypothesis X havibg a probability P, based on the likelihood of the data > and our model. > Yet when we talk about fundamental particles (and processes) it sounds > almost as if they are handled (roughly speaking) as either concrete or > conjectured (P=1 or P=small) but there doesn't seem to be an attempt to > use probability and likelihood (aka Bayesian networks) to quantify this. > > So my question is really about how we/do we deal with this system of > apparent probabilities into our reasoning (personally, as Scientists.) I do not understand what is being asked. But, we cannot know what a particle *is*, we can only know how it behaves. A particle is a solution (function) to an equation. Probability is the new determinism and certainty. The sooner we stop trying to grasp the nature of a particle with our inborn tools of comprehension, the better off we will be. |