Stefan,
The only reality I trust is based on consistent patterns of behavior -
the more consistent the more real. Of course, these patterns can be
and are described by mathematical equations. However, the equations
prove nothing that the patterns have not already revealed.
Nevertheless, the equations can make extrapolation and interpellation
easier. The basic concept, if true, can be explained in normal
language. The field of mathematics has provided tools (language) to
describe reality but the tools are not reality any more than English
is reality. Yet some people assume the equations can make a concept
real or that the equation itself is real. I know people who think the
phonon and the Hamiltonian are real conditions in Nature rather than
being mathematical constructs created for convenience.
Ed Storms
On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, if 4 don't work, try 5. If 5 fail, try 50. As they say, with
enough variables, all data can be fit. It never occurs to these
people that their basic model may be wrong. They just keep adding
variables and complexity until all the points fall on a line.
Ed Storms
I always wanted to know what theoretical physicists have to say
about that argument. I just saw in the
swedish television a nice program that was a filosofical discussion
about science in general, and that question came out. The feeling of
the expert was that it was too much things that fell on place that
they argue that the theory should be pretty much correct and that
the theory predicted things that was shown correct. But then when I
take my statistical and mathematical hat on I just see to much
opportunity to add variables that are fitted in experiments and then
the whole thing matches a theory of a certain order, that should by
some expansion fit to a more conventional albeit perhaps a bit more
nonlinear model. Then of cause the high dimensional theory would
predict the right things if what is probed is for example the second
order effects of the model.
Another pet peeve of mine is the popular argument that because we
live it must be true argument, which is fine if one also supply
alternative arguments. As an example take the realization that if
the physical constants was just a little of, then the universe would
not allow us to live and because we live, the parameters are as they
are assuming a multiverse. Another argument is that the model of all
things have really fewer parameters and hence that the parameters
really are dependant. But you never hear that possibility in the TV
shows, which shows a good piece if overconfidence of what we have
today.
Cheers!
/Stefan
