On 1/12/2014 12:55 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 January 2014 19:53, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they
mainly
make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the
addition
of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The
justification
of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is
expected to work.
--—John von Neumann
How does one know which mathematical construct to try out, to see if it will work?
Surely interpretation becomes necessary at some point.
Von Neumann recognizes above that some interpretation is necessary for the application of
mathematics, "the addition of certain verbal interpretations". Which mathematics to try
may be suggested by the interpretation of some earlier theories, which is what I see as
useful about metaphysics - it may suggest improved physics.
But the interesting thing about this quote, which I think is generally overlooked, is that
even those theories/models we think of a providing "good explanations" only seem that way
because of familiarity. We think easily of gravity as explaining the orbit of the Moon.
But in the 17th century it prompted the question, "But what is pushing on the Moon to
provide the force?" Now we say there is no force, it's just a distortion of space, so the
Moon is just going in a "straight line". So the observable facts stay the same, the
predictions become a little more accurate, but the ontological "explanation" varies
drastically.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
