meekerdb wrote:
On 6/5/2015 12:22 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> It's very relevant if you want to know what is a simplified
approximation of what. And we both agree that a electronic
computer is vastly more complex than it's logical schematic,
so why can we make a working model of the complex thing but
not make a working model of the simple thing when usually it's
easier to make a simple thing than a complex thing? The only
answer that comes to mind is that particular simplified
approximation is just too simplified and just too approximate
to actually do anything. That simplification must be missing
something important, matter that obeys the laws of physics.
> The trouble with this argument is that the laws of physics are
mathematical abstractions.
Mathematicians are always saying that mathematics is a language, but
what would be the consequences if that were really true? The best way
known to describe the laws of physics is to write then in the language
of mathematics, but a language is not the thing the language is
describing.
I agree the laws of physics are descriptions we invent; but even so they
are abstractions and not material and what they define is only an
approximation to what happens in the world. That's what makes them
useful - they let us make predictions while leaving out a lot of stuff.
So what is this "lot of stuff" that the mathematical abstractions leave
out? In response you your initial point that "the laws of physics are
mathematical abstractions", the obvious questions is "Abstractions from
what?"
Bruce
--
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/d/optout.
