Re: models and physical laws
On 28.04.2012 17:49 meekerdb said the following: On 4/28/2012 12:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: If we say that everything based on models, the question is then what physical laws are. For example, if quantum mechanics is just a model, then its interpretation, for example MWI, in my view, does not make too much sense. Evgenii It's a model - not 'just a model' (as if it weren't a model *of* something). Newtonian physics is a model. Does that mean it's interpretation doesn't make sense? Brent A model, in my view, is a pragmatic instrument to interpolate and with some luck extrapolate measurements. Why one should be interested in interpretation of a model? Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: models and physical laws
John, according to your agnostic view, is a model a good term to describe our knowledge? Evgenii On 28.04.2012 22:37 John Mikes said the following: Evgenii: MWI is great, I just cannot follow the logic why ALL 'worlds' should be identical with this one we are doomed to live in (except for playing with the 'transport' folly). This one is so lousy that ONE is more than enough of it. I derived a narrative for (my) Bigbang (one word) with innumerable universes, All of them with their own qualia - no restrictions, reaching into ample marvels what we cannot even fancy about. On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote: If we say that everything based on models, the question is then what physical laws are. For example, if quantum mechanics is just a model, then its interpretation, for example MWI, in my view, does not make too much sense. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: models and physical laws
If we say that everything based on models, the question is then what physical laws are. For example, if quantum mechanics is just a model, then its interpretation, for example MWI, in my view, does not make too much sense. Evgenii On 28.04.2012 03:00 meekerdb said the following: ... Something like the latter. When you ask for an explanation of something, you need to have in mind some terms that would satisfy that request. They need to be something you understand better than the thing to be explained. They need to provide you with manipulative or at least predictive power. Otherwise they are just inventing names for things (like Craig's 'senses'). Once you have that, you feel you have an explanation. What you refer to as an 'intractable distinction' is no more intractable than the question asked of Newton as to how gravity pushed on the planets. When you study physics and engineering you learn pretty quickly that questions about 'How does it do that' bottom out. At some level, now QFT or GR, it just does. Everybody who isn't a physicist or engineer, thinks, Oh those physicists and engineers have got it figured out. No, they don't. They've got good working models. So what I mean is that in the end that's the best you can do - have a good working model. And when we have a good working model of consciousness, we'll have bypassed the 'hard problem'. Brent 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: models and physical laws
On Apr 28, 3:10 am, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: If we say that everything based on models, the question is then what physical laws are. 'Models' are nothing whatsoever except strategies we employ to make sense of something we are unfamiliar with by tying them metaphorically to a sense experience that is more familiar to us. For example, if quantum mechanics is just a model, then its interpretation, for example MWI, in my view, does not make too much sense. The MWI is like Dark matter and Dark energy, plugs to preserve the theory rather than confront the challenge that reality (or realism) presents. Evgenii On 28.04.2012 03:00 meekerdb said the following: ... Something like the latter. When you ask for an explanation of something, you need to have in mind some terms that would satisfy that request. They need to be something you understand better than the thing to be explained. They need to provide you with manipulative or at least predictive power. Otherwise they are just inventing names for things (like Craig's 'senses'). Sense is a very common term which I am using in exactly the same 'sense' that everyone else uses. How can anyone say that I invented the term 'sense'? I chose it deliberately to make sure that everyone knows that I am not inventing anything, only interpreting what is already here. Once you have that, you feel you have an explanation. What you refer to as an 'intractable distinction' is no more intractable than the question asked of Newton as to how gravity pushed on the planets. When you study physics and engineering you learn pretty quickly that questions about 'How does it do that' bottom out. At some level, now QFT or GR, it just does. Everybody who isn't a physicist or engineer, thinks, Oh those physicists and engineers have got it figured out. No, they don't. They've got good working models. So what I mean is that in the end that's the best you can do - have a good working model. Speak for yourself. I have done better than a model, I have an understanding. With that, I can churn out many models. And when we have a good working model of consciousness, we'll have bypassed the 'hard problem'. Not if matter-space and mind-time have a form/content relation rather than a cause-effect relation. There can never be a solution to the hard problem any more than there can be a way of making a heads side of a coin out of it's own tails side. The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, Which is why science will have to expand if it is to address interpretation and explanation (consciousness) itself. Craig 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: models and physical laws
On 4/28/2012 12:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: If we say that everything based on models, the question is then what physical laws are. For example, if quantum mechanics is just a model, then its interpretation, for example MWI, in my view, does not make too much sense. Evgenii It's a model - not 'just a model' (as if it weren't a model *of* something). Newtonian physics is a model. Does that mean it's interpretation doesn't make sense? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
