On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 7:57:33 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote: > > *> you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that in physics we use >> idealized cases to reach important insights.* > > > Far from ignoring it for years I've been trying to convince Bruno that > mathematical approximations help us understand physical phenomena but > simulations are always simpler than the real physical thing; therefore > physics is not an approximation of mathematics but mathematics is an > approximation of physics. So physics is more fundamental than mathematics. > I mean... if a mathematical model of what the path of a hurricane will do > does not conform to what it actually does we don't say the physical > hurricane made an error, we say the computer model made an error. > > John K Clark >
The fact that our models are simplifications of reality, means that the principles of physics on which are models are derived, are also approximations. So, again, your argument about the relationship of mathematics to physics fails. Conic sections to model planetary orbits are hugely successful. The fact that they're not exactly perfect is obvious, and cannot honesty be appealed to, to claim that mathematics is "merely" approximate, whereas the principles of physics are somehow more perfect. We know this isn't generally true, since GR is superior to NM, but even GR will someday be supplanted by a better understanding of gravity. AG -- 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/26c2450e-d615-4dc1-a70c-a36a948fc07eo%40googlegroups.com.
