On 17 Nov 2003, at 4:12 pm, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
Let me understand. You are seriously suggesting that viewing physics through a computer science lens is as valid as viewing physics through a physics lens?
Somewhat off topic, but what do you think of
Structure and Interpretaion of Classical Mechanics Gerald Jay Sussman and Jack Wisdom 2001, MIT Press ISBN 0-262-019455-4
?
This book does not involve using `a computer science lens', but as it says in the Preface
Classical mechanics is deceptively simple. .... Traditional mathematical notation contributes to this problem. Symbols have ambiguous meanings, ....
[in this book] Computational algorithms are used to communicate precisely some of the methods used in the analysis of dynamical phenomena. Expressing the methods of variational mechanics in a computer language forces them to be unambiguous and computationally effective.
To bring the question back to topic, would it be useful to consider thinking about a photon's actions through a computer science lens as a *metaphor*? (In this case, the action is specified by a `method' appropriate to the context, where the actions are either going through two slits at the same time, like a wave upon the water, or else behaving like a stone.)
Then, could the metaphor eventually be tranformed into physics? If so, how?
Aren't the mathematical descriptions of physics just metaphors? There is the 'ding an sich' and there is the model. Worrying about the metaphysics of models seems daft to me. The 'thing itself' is the final arbiter. If the model has problems then that is the problem of the model since reality carries on regardless :)
-- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
