On 11/14/2019 3:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson
wrote:
The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my
conclusion after many years of studying, arguing and reading.
Many, perhaps most, attribute ontological character to what is
epistemological; namely the wf. This leads to all kinds of
conceptual errors, and ridiculous models and conjectures --
such as MW, particles being in two positions at the same time,
radiioactive sources that are simultanously decayed and
undecayed, and so forth. The wf gives us information about the
state of a system and nothing more. Sorry to disappoint. AG
Physics is only models that come and go. One model (an expression
in a language) can be replaced by another if it's useful.
Physicists who jump from a model to an absolute statement about
reality are out over their skis.
*How Models Are Used to Represent Reality*
Ronald N. Giere
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216300663_How_Models_Are_Used_to_Represent_Reality
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216300663_How_Models_Are_Used_to_Represent_Reality>
Most recent philosophical thought about the scientific
representation of the world has focused on dyadic relationships
between language-like entities and the world, particularly the
semantic relationships of reference and truth. Drawing inspiration
from diverse sources, I argue that we should focus on the
pragmatic activity of representing, so that the basic
representational relationship has the form: Scientists use models
to represent aspects of the world for specific purposes. Leaving
aside the terms "law" and "theory," I distinguish principles,
specific conditions, models, hypotheses, and generalizations. I
argue that scientists use designated similarities between models
and aspects of the world to form both hypotheses and generalizations.
@philipthrift.
I fundamentally disagree. The premise underlying models is that they
progressively approach a "true" discription of the external world. Do
you really think the Earth-centered model of the solar system is
equally true as our present understanding? AG
The Earth centric view of Ptolemy was not as true as Newton's
heliocentric view...but that's because it was not as accurate. Newton is
considered superior, not just because his theory was more accurate, but
because it had a universal application. The greatest importance of
Newton was that he broke the idea that the heavens went by different
rules than the Earth. So "truth" per se is not the distinction. As
Bill can tell you astronomers have no problem with regarding the Earth
as stationary and the Sun going around it. But they use Newton's
equations to determine how it goes. It's convenience...not truth.
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
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a094f835-a6ea-d7f9-af2d-87dba7df7435%40verizon.net.
