----- Original Message ----- From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 7:55 PM Subject: Re: Explanation
> > 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? For what? We have models; if they fit observations, they are good theories. If they don't, they are not. >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. Science has to do with observations, not things in themselves. How do you access the think in itself? >If the model has problems then that is the problem of the > model since reality carries on regardless :) Reality carries on, sure, but science is not concerned with the relationship between observations and things in themselves; its only concerned with modeling observations. Now it is true, that physicists are much more likely to think about this than biologists or chemists. The reason for this is fairly straightforward. Chemists, biologists, etc. can usually use the convenient fiction that we are living in a classical world without contradicting experimental results. Physicists cannot do QM without dropping this fiction. So, they tend to think about why they can't more often. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
