Re: "The map is not the Territory"...
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: International All-Star Cast: "Request For Comment"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: The Emptiness of Theology"
- In reply to: stan: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:49:29 GMT
"stan" <stan@stan.stan.com> wrote in message
news:2mrcksFphac4U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> news:i7cbg0de6u7o74v0g6machm5lbqsu5cdtj@4ax.com...
> > As has been clearly noted & shown by certain posters of late,
> > some seem to think that equations ARE reality. They speak in
> > phrases like, "why, the energy COMES from Noether's Theorem,
> > of course" or, a physical cause "follows from the variation
> > of the EM Action integral...", etc.
> >
> > While such equations clearly do quantify behavior they, by
> > their very nature, are regligated solely to mapping, nothing
> > more. Physical energy can no more come from any equational
> > expression than an actual mountain from any topological map.
> > Natural processes existed long before a single mathematical
> > expession was penned, and will exist long after those same
> > expressions fade beyond memory. That is the actual reality of
> > the territory, and we better understand that fact. The better
> > we understand that territory the more detailed our maps will
> > become, and, the better prepared we'll be foraging through
> > said territory.
> >
> > The title of this post cuts to the heart of this matter and is
> > rather quite famous, since it isn't this mentality isn't isolated
> > to the newsgroups here. Confusing the map for territory has
> > gone on for centuries, and certainly won't suddenly dissappear
> > tommorrow. Further, this sword is double edged and can cut both
> > ways. Those that demand that process physical models MUST trump
> > equations are just as guilty as those that demand equations
> > alone are all that's important. The balance that keeps the sword
> > from cutting either way is observational & experimental evidence.
> > When constrained by this matching processes to behavior AND then
> > quantifying that behavior with mathematics equations, the territory
> > can be seen, and the map best defined. This is the best of both
> > worlds.
> >
> > I would suggest that both elements are essential to science and
> > neither, in isolation, can provide the complete & detailed
> > understanding of the 'territory' of the actual physical universe
> > we live in. There is room & necessity for both.
> >
> > Paul Stowe
>
> Quite true - math is a tool that helps us understand and can predict, but
> our math fails us (in many areas) in understanding physical things, One
> glaring example: the singularity, black hole and the sqrt(-1) issue.
The sqrt (-1) issue? Check out a guy called Gauss and something called the
fundamental theorem of algebra.
Thanks
Bill
- Next message: International All-Star Cast: "Request For Comment"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: The Emptiness of Theology"
- In reply to: stan: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
