Physics is Just a Model

[J_B_]

When I used to post here more regularly, I found that comments such as "physics is just a model" were often the ones that drew the harshest and most impassioned responses - even though such comments were typically only made in passing as I tried to get from point A to point B. Not everyone disagreed with that statement, but those who did argued against it like Crusaders defending the walls of Jerusalem. 'No, no, no', they said, 'Physics is reality.'

That's why it's always refreshing to find videos like the first link below.

Second, I happen to enjoy the "Up and Atom" channel. Third, when I was eventually taught Lagrangian Mechanics (the focus of the video), my reaction was: This is SO MUCH EASIER than Newtonian Mechanics. What the ...? Why wasn't I taught this first, or at least much sooner?

Finally, and in the same vein, I thought the second link also touches on an important sentiment: proper discourse - and interestingly enough uses another statement I've made that often draws an energetic response.

Regardless, if anyone is interested in how mathematics models our world, I'm game.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Probably my first objection was raised when she said something to the effect that light goes the fastest path. In Newtonian physics we see that the flashlight shined at the fish actually has 'light beams' going many other places. Refraction at the border of the medium change. In other words, all other things being equal, if it had "chosen" to take a slower path, it would not have ended at the fish. It (and its closest neighbors) is the only one that got to the fish. The consideration that it is the faster path does not allow for the fact that it is the ONLY path.

I understand that the two models attempt different points of view, or modes of thinking, so I don't mean that as a criticism. But it suggests merely that they are simply two ways to look at things. But it does posit the fascinating news that the only way 'just happens' to also be the fastest way. So anyhow, thanks. It was fun.

And while I was involved in figuring out what bothered me, I may well have missed something she said, so.... this is just a comment.

 

[SelfSim]

When I used to post here more regularly, I found that comments such as "physics is just a model"
...
'No, no, no', they said, 'Physics is reality.'
...
Regardless, if anyone is interested in how mathematics models our world, I'm game.

Everything we perceive, once described using language, (which includes math descriptions), becomes a model. Modelling is what our minds do, once we use language.

All of science's models, (including all of its definitions), however are objectively testable, either in theory, or in practice.

Reality in Physics is the meaning we assign to models which 'test out' (objectively).
Reality can also be assigned a meaning by way of beliefs.
Regardless of either of these ways we go about it, objective evidence of active minds having been at work, remains .. (ie: the mind's fingerprints are all over reality).
All we have to do is look for it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When I used to post here more regularly, I found that comments such as "physics is just a model" were often the ones that drew the harshest and most impassioned responses - even though such comments were typically only made in passing as I tried to get from point A to point B. Not everyone disagreed with that statement, but those who did argued against it like Crusaders defending the walls of Jerusalem. 'No, no, no', they said, 'Physics is reality.'

That's why it's always refreshing to find videos like the first link below.

Second, I happen to enjoy the "Up and Atom" channel. Third, when I was eventually taught Lagrangian Mechanics (the focus of the video), my reaction was: This is SO MUCH EASIER than Newtonian Mechanics. What the ...? Why wasn't I taught this first, or at least much sooner?

Finally, and in the same vein, I thought the second link also touches on an important sentiment: proper discourse - and interestingly enough uses another statement I've made that often draws an energetic response.

Regardless, if anyone is interested in how mathematics models our world, I'm game.

Just wanted to remark on another thought that came to me, that at one time there was a philosophy that what we saw as cause-and-effect, was the Gods directly causing everything to look that way. Not sure why they did that, but it is interesting to me.

 

[J_B_]

Probably my first objection was raised when she said something to the effect that light goes the fastest path. In Newtonian physics we see that the flashlight shined at the fish actually has 'light beams' going many other places. Refraction at the border of the medium change. In other words, all other things being equal, if it had "chosen" to take a slower path, it would not have ended at the fish. It (and its closest neighbors) is the only one that got to the fish. The consideration that it is the faster path does not allow for the fact that it is the ONLY path.

I understand that the two models attempt different points of view, or modes of thinking, so I don't mean that as a criticism. But it suggests merely that they are simply two ways to look at things. But it does posit the fascinating news that the only way 'just happens' to also be the fastest way. So anyhow, thanks. It was fun.

And while I was involved in figuring out what bothered me, I may well have missed something she said, so.... this is just a comment.

Thanks. You ought to try commenting on the actual video and see what she says (if anything).

 

[J_B_]

... the mind's fingerprints are all over reality ...

I don't know if that counts as a mixed metaphor or something. Regardless, I like it.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Maybe my perspective is out of date.

I studied History and Philosophy of Science and was impressed that Carl Popper was responsible for the experimental method and was a believer.

From a biblical perspective He has given us to learn about His creation and thus science within certain bounds is a noble pursuit.

The experimental method excludes the paranormal.

However, whatever model one uses, there will always be an approximation to detailed reality, given that eternity is built into our lives and we can never know the final Truth. Ecc 3:11

 

[SelfSim]

... whatever model one uses, there will always be an approximation to detailed reality,

'Reality' is a model.

 

[Carl Emerson]

'Reality' is a model.

That is one theory - not proved.

 

[SelfSim]

That is one theory - not proved.

Objectively testable .. and the hypothesis tests out just fine producing abundant objective evidence (with zip objective evidence that reality 'exists' independently from our minds).

 

[Carl Emerson]

Objectively testable .. and the hypothesis tests out just fine producing abundant objective evidence (with zip objective evidence that reality 'exists' independently from our minds).

Really - how can your theory be anywhere else than in minds?

 

[SelfSim]

Really - how can your theory be anywhere else than in minds?

That would be up to you to sort out ..
All I have to do is to allow for the possibility and wait for a half-way decent test to consider.

In the mean time 'reality' is a mind model that we assign meanings for.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That would be up to you to sort out ..

I have and it is...

 

[SelfSim]

I have and it is...

I notice you used your mind to do that.
How is that mind independent, then?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Actually I didnt...

The mind is not the final arbiter - the spirit is.

The mind is the wrong tool to establish absolutes.

 

[SelfSim]

Actually I didnt...
The mind is not the final arbiter - the spirit is.

The mind is the wrong tool to establish absolutes.

'Spirit' is a mind model .. so is 'absolutes' .. (all I have to do, is to ask you describe what these terms mean in order to produce the evidence of your mind at work).

 

[Carl Emerson]

'Spirit' is a mind model .. so is 'absolutes' .. (all I have to do, is to ask you describe what these terms mean in order to produce the evidence of your mind at work).

No that wouldn't work...

It is something you experience, not a rational conclusion.

 

[SelfSim]

No that wouldn't work...

It is something you experience, not a rational conclusion.

.. its a belief you experience then (which you accept as being real). Still takes a mind to do the believing part of that though ..

Let me illustrate using a more difficult example of a typical conversation:

Me: please tell me something you regard as objectively real.
Person#1: the Empire State Building (etc.)
Me: so the Empire State Building is something you are sure exists independently of you.
Person#1: yes.
Me: and why are you sure it exists?
Person#1: for reasons X, Y, and Z.
Me: So those reasons convince you that you are sure?
Person#1: yes.
Me: That's the part that isn't independent of you.

 

[Carl Emerson]

.. its a belief you experience then (which you accept as being real). Still takes a mind to do the believing part of that though ..

Let me illustrate using a more difficult example of a typical conversation:

Me: please tell me something you regard as objectively real.
Person#1: the Empire State Building (etc.)
Me: so the Empire State Building is something you are sure exists independently of you.
Person#1: yes.
Me: and why are you sure it exists?
Person#1: for reasons X, Y, and Z.
Me: So those reasons convince you that you are sure?
Person#1: yes.
Me: That's the part that isn't independent of you.

Absolutely not - it bypasses the mind.

 

[SelfSim]

You said:

No that wouldn't work...
It is something you experience, ..

How do you perceive this experience if it bypasses the mind's perceptions?