Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:51:21 -0600
In article <65e62$46caa076$82a1e228$25569@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
T.H. Ray wrote:
If a mathematical model is not the "real thing,"
then what do you propose replace mathematics to
allow you to arrive at the "real thing," i.e., the
true measure? We are talking about mathematics and
measure here, are we not?
The best we can do is to _approximate_ reality. Mathematical models are
only an approximation. (Measurements give only approximate knowledge as
well, admittedly.) As soon as we have an "exact" mathematical model, it
should be "re-normalized", in order to acknowledge the fact that we can
never know all of the details:
No amount of "renormalizing" can ever make the mathematical model and
the physical reality being modeled identical.
One is much better off not assuming such impossibilities.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
- References:
- Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
- From: T.H. Ray
- Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
- Prev by Date: Re: About random, primes and statistics
- Next by Date: Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
- Previous by thread: Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
- Next by thread: Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|