Re: Predictions from Mathematical models

From: Mike Helland (mobydikc_at_gmail.com)
Date: 02/11/05 

Date: 11 Feb 2005 08:59:41 -0800

Mark Fergerson wrote:
> Mike Helland wrote:
> > Mark Fergerson wrote:
>
> <resnip>
>
> >> ... perhaps it'd help if you'd state more clearly what you're
> >> trying to replace; the current kinds of mathematical models used
in the
> >>Scientific Method, or the philosophy behind the Scientific Method?
>
> > In the very first message of this thread I said:
> >
> > <quote>
> > One excersize that might pay off in trying to over come what
appears to
> > be an irresolvable disagreement in the theories of physics, is
> > considering a different method of predicting measurment outcomes
from
> > mathematical models.
> >
> > Here is the idea that I came up with:
> >
> > Instead of taking a value of of the system, we need to investigate
the
> > system to find out what observers in the system know about the
system.
> > </quote>
> >
> > Is should be clear that I am trying to replace the method by which
> > predictions are derived from mathematical models.
> >
> > Hence the title of this thread.
> >
> > The old method is:
> >
> > 1. Compare the values of the mathematical model to measurements in
our
> > world
>
> I would have said "Compare the predicted values (results of
"working
> out the equations")...", and I believe we're in agreement on the
sense
> behind those particular semantics.
>
> > The new method is to:
> >
> > 1. Arrange the values of the mathematical model into a modeled
observer
> > of the modeled world in which it exists and functions
>
> "Arrange the _values_ of the mathematical model"? What values?
> Observed properties of entities ordinarily used as input data to
> mathematical models? Relationship-type properties of one or more
> candidate models used to parse input data?

No, and no. The numeric values of the system are what the rules operate
on.

To find out what these values represnt, do a text search on the word
"values" and you will eventually be able to answer that for yourself.

> Alternatively, does that phrase refer to the predictions of said
> model? If so, why bother simulating reality when we have _real_
reality
> to check them against?
>
> Is the arrangement of "values of the mathematical model" a
> mathematical model of the mathematical model, or not?

No.

> Is the model of the observer a mathematical model, or not?

It could be, but it doesn't have to be.

> How
> accurately does it correspond to an actual observer, and how do you
know?

It accruately corresponds to an actual observer if the predictions are
confirmed. How do you know? That's what you have to find out. That's
step 2:

> > 2. Find out what that modeled observer has measured of its modeled
> > world
>
> IOW, run a simulation of reality within a computer program that
> simulates "working out the equations"?

No.

> Do you intend your model
> of the observer within the simulation to be a _complete_ model of a
> human mind?

It could be, but it doesn't have to be.

> I have. As you point out on the webpage, it's a work in progress,
> which may explain some of what I perceive as a lack of clarity.

A better explaination is you don't have a clear understanding of what I
am saying.

Not very many people. You can blame my text for this, but without any
specific criticisms, that won't do either of us any good.

> But I see right at the top what we were discussing in the other
>thread, namely your definition of "nature" as that which we experience
>within our minds, as distinct from the Universe exterior to our minds.
>
> Have you decided that our sensoria are on one side or the other of
>this division?

Haven't you answered your own question here? Think about it. 

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