Re: Predictions from Mathematical models

From: Mike Helland (mobydikc_at_gmail.com)
Date: 02/03/05 

Date: 3 Feb 2005 10:19:11 -0800

Mark Fergerson wrote:
> Mike Helland wrote:
>
> < BTW, I got a new computer (and changed browser/newsreader) so I
lost
> track of the "To what do the laws of physics apply?" thread. Any new
> thoughts on that?>

Ah, indeed. The ball is still in my court wrt that thread. I'll revisit
it.

> > 2. Today, our mathematical models are relationships between values
that
> > represent measurement outcomes
>
> What else is there?

There is what I've been trying to communicate to you for a while now
:-)

Leibniz, Zuse, Fredkin, they have all suggested something different
from the above.

Unfortunately, these are very very poorly understood, presumably
because they are such radical departures from what you've been taught.

> > 4. There is nothing about physics, or the scientific method, that
says
> > this is the one and only way of deriving predictions from
mathematical
> > models.
>
> Fine so far, except mathematical models must be based on
observations
> of physical systems. One makes observations and _then_ selects a
> mathematical formalism that fits the observations, then looks to see
if
> the mathematical formalism can predict not-yet-observed properties of

> the actual physical system. One does that by working the equations
out
> farther than was used to parse the original data.

How can you say that premise 4. is "fine so far", and then say "one
does that by working the equations"?

You either except that equations (relationships between observable
magnitudes) are the *only* way to derive predictions, or you do not.

Which is it? And if you think equations are the only way, what sort of
argument can you provide to support that opinion?

I would agree that "tradition" certainly suggests that this has worked
in the past, but inductive logic is not a response to critical
inquirey.

> > What do I mean by that? Say you have some modeled electrons and
protons
> > and you arrange them into a mercury thermometer.
>
> > ___oo__oo___ooo
> > ___oo__oo
> > ___oo__oo___oo
> > ___oo__oo
> > ___oo++oo___o
> > __oo++++oo
> > __oo++++oo
> > ___oooooo
>
> This is extremely unclear.

It is supposed to be a thermometer, the "o" represents molecules making
up the glass, and the "+" is the mercury.

In this simulation of particle physics, all the numeric values in the
model represent properties of particles.

The prediction here is that the temperature is "1 degree" of whatever
the unit for the thermometer is (1 because the mercury is at the single
"o" marker, if it had been at "oo" then the prediction would be 2).

But the value "1" does not exist as a numeric value in the model. It is
something that must be derived through analysis of the values. Not
simply looked at and reported.

<snip>
> > Essentially, physics today describes a world of measurement
outcomes.
>
> What else is there?

There is this:

> > My new application for mathematical models describes a world where
> > measurement takes place. I think it is more suited for quantum and
> > relativistic behavior than the technique Newton established.
>
> What does this mean?

It is so different from what you know, that you will not understand it
unless you committ yourself to understanding it.

If you are ready, you will read this web page several times, and get
back to me with any specific questions:

http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm