On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 9:40:46 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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 >
Correction; ... on which OUR models are derived ... 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/06532910-f062-424f-ad68-cd13ccb311c4o%40googlegroups.com.
