Physics is Just a Model

[sjastro]

My explanation of Lagrangian mechanics was from a mathematical perspective.
An explanation from a physics perspective is to assume the E-L equation is valid and find the equivalent Newtonian equations.
While not as rigorous it is easier to understand then going through pages of maths.

 

[dlamberth]

'Experience' here, is 'the How' .. takes a mind to accumulate experience and give your knowledge that meaning you have for 'reality' there though, eh?
(Yet another test passed ..)

I was looking at your choices of "belief or the scientific (objective) method". And from my experiences in life there's more going on in life than those two choices offered. Consciousness for example. Mind/Heart awareness is another.

Yes .. fear is what you have that experience mean .. (more mind dependence there).

I'd suggest that there would be a lot more going on than mind dependence. The whole body, all senses and beyond would be involved.

 

[SelfSim]

So our poor friend got hit by a testable model? And an attribute of the model did him in?

If your overall point there, is:

- If ‘bus’ is just a model and ‘force’ is just an attribute, (or another model), and we all understand what you mean by ‘did him in’, then it is incorrect (and outrageous) reasoning which leads to the claim that our friend’s fate was brought about by mere models (ie: bus and force’)?

My justified and totally consistent response, from the mind model dependent reality viewpoint, is:
‘I know that’s not how models work .. but they’re all still models’ .. including how I know that'.

 

[SelfSim]

I was looking at your choices of "belief or the scientific (objective) method". And from my experiences in life there's more going on in life than those two choices offered. Consciousness for example. Mind/Heart awareness is another.

Consciousness is a fundamental for everything you just came up with there .. It is also a fundamental for adding the meaning to our concept of reality, either by way of beliefs, or doing science .. and even conceiving anything.
If you don't agree there .. try demonstrating all that you said there without consciousness! (Good luck!)

I'd suggest that there would be a lot more going on than mind dependence. The whole body, all senses and beyond would be involved.

Your meaning for 'whole body, all senses and beyond' are demonstrably mind models (from the mind dependent reality viewpoint).

Its models all the way down!
I get that you're just telling me what your preferred ones are.

 

[dlamberth]

Consciousness is a fundamental for everything you just came up with there .. It is also a fundamental for adding the meaning to our concept of reality, either by way of beliefs, or doing science .. and even conceiving anything.
If you don't agree there .. try demonstrating all that you said there without consciousness! (Good luck!)

I have to go back to "experience". Consciousness is the avenue to being aware of experience. Which is neither beliefs or science. Consciousness can be extended beyond the mind.

Your meaning for 'whole body, all senses and beyond' are demonstrably mind models (from the mind dependent reality viewpoint).

I agree only if the whole body is considered part of mind.

 

[Mountainmike]

'What it is', doesn't seem to be as important to us, as the method by which we arrive at its meaning .. (ie: 'the how' .. and not so much: 'the what').
There are two methods I know of: belief or the scientific (objective) method.

A false dichotomy.

Science “ believes” there is “ real” matter explaining the dark matter problem. In essence there is only a modelling error that has the dimensions of mass that may or may not be addressed by a longer equation, assuming and if the error correlated with something!

Science “ believes “ in abiogenesis despite there being no evidence , no valid hypothesis , and indeed the simplest cell is not only self evolving , self repairing chemical manufacturing plant but makes tens of thousands of proteins orders of magnitude more complicated than any plants man has ever conceived let alone built.

Indeed a theistic hypothesis wins hands down on forensic evidence for origin of life! And according to Darwin disproves his theory.
White cells in Eucharistic miracles.
The evidence is compelling, but more important there is evidence from science of a theistic hypothesis confirming belief. Both science and belief involved. It beats abiogenesis because there is some scientific evidence!


Belief and science address different problems. They are not mutually exclusive.

Science models what is observed to repeat in our limited sense perception of the universe. It believes it will extend that model, but otherwise has nothing to say about existence, consciousness or anything else.

 

[SelfSim]

Consciousness can be extended beyond the mind.

.. and how do you come to that conclusion? Does that process involve your mind?

I agree only if the whole body is considered part of mind.

A distributed thought model has been considered in the medical sciences for a long time. I think the consensus, (aimed at making useful, practical predictions), is that thinking is largely a brain centred function, fed by other distributed sensory organs(?)

Its a different topic from Physics and how we arrive at meanings for reality though. (Better off launching a new thread on that one).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... When the bus is bearing down on you, one immediately accepts the reality of unstoppable forces and their calamitous effect on the body.

Quite - if the bus that puts you in hospital isn't real, you really have to question what we mean by reality...

 

[SelfSim]

A false dichotomy.

Meh .. its a work in progress .. no absolutes in any of it .. there's always room for change in the light of new objective results .. (provisional and contextual).

Science “ believes” there is “ real” matter explaining the dark matter problem.

In the case of dark matter and dark energy, if you were to ask me do I believe that such exists, then all I could say is that it seems to be our best current model.

Does that mean I 'believe in it'? Absolutely not. Nor does it mean I believe there isn't dark matter or dark energy. It means it is simply not a matter of belief at all, and if I do choose to form a belief on that topic, no one else should even care.

So you see why I would also even reject the concept of an 'informed belief'? That's exactly what your (implied) hypothetical question was asking there; if I had an informed belief that dark energy and dark matter were real, but it's the wrong question, in science/Physics.
The right question for the scientific (Physics) thinker is 'does your experience and expertise lead you to regard dark energy/dark matter (etc) as our best current model?', and then their answer would be 'yes', which they can then say without having to stop and ponder just what you were actually asking there and why you would care!

Science “ believes “ in abiogenesis despite there being no evidence , no valid hypothesis ,

Wrong thread to start arguments about Abiogenesis. See the one I started here, which contains a pretty thorough, up to date, testable hypothesis in the OP.

Indeed a theistic hypothesis wins hands down on forensic evidence for origin of life! And according to Darwin disproves his theory.
White cells in Eucharistic miracles.
The evidence is compelling, but more important there is evidence from science of a theistic hypothesis confirming belief. Both science and belief involved. It beats abiogenesis because there is some scientific evidence!

Y'know I'm not of the mindset to play endless games dancing around the meaning of the word 'evidence' (as though science has (somehow) staked some kind of claim to what 'evidence' must, or must not, be) .. thus, maybe surprisingly, I can easily consider 'theistic evidence' within theistic contexts, should I have the time and inclination to do that.
You are welcomed to support your objectively untestable 'arguments' in theism, until we're both blue in the face, but all we'll ever demonstrate there, when arguing over which is real and which isn't, is two differently thinking mindsets: one which starts from assumed posits believed as being real, (theistic), and a scientifically thinking one following the scientific (objective) method, in order to justify our respective meanings we want to assign to 'what's real' (and what isn't).

Not sure of the point in doing what's already perfectly obvious to me .. (in crystal clarity), though .. which is that differently thinking minds add meaning to our human mind concept denoted by the term 'reality'.

Belief and science address different problems. They are not mutually exclusive.

(Re: My underline): Yes .. both require human minds thinking in different ways in order to give meaning to words: 'exists', 'what's real', 'is', or 'reality' .. with those minds both being normal, healthy and human.

Science models what is observed to repeat in our limited sense perception of the universe.

.. err .. or, more like: adding meaning to what science means when it uses the term 'universe' (which is based on any kind of objectively obtained, repeatable test results/observations) ..

It believes it will extend that model, but otherwise has nothing to say about existence, consciousness or anything else.

We more or less expect that model to be updated (based on objective observations from past data, that it has changed before .. many times).
Science doesn't 'believe' anything .. people do that .. and when they think in scientific ways, they add meaning to the scientific concept of 'reality' (which is what I call 'Objective Reality' .. in order to distinguish it from the other way of doing it: aka by believing in posited truths).

 

[SelfSim]

Quite - if the bus that puts you in hospital isn't real, you really have to question what we mean by reality...

Why leave it til then .. when one may well have lost the capacity to even pose the question .. let alone form the conclusion?

 

[sjastro]

While the Lagrangian for Newtonian gravity is very simply described as the difference between the kinetic and potential energies (T- V) it becomes progressively more complicated for special and general relatively, through to the quantum field theories for the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces.

The pinnacle for complexity is the Lagrangian for the standard model of particle physics.

​

To 99.99% of the population it appears to be nothing more than doodles.
An explanation of each section of this Lagrangian is given here.

 

[SelfSim]

The pinnacle for complexity is the Lagrangian for the standard model of particle physics.

​

 

[Hans Blaster]

While the Lagrangian for Newtonian gravity is very simply described as the difference between the kinetic and potential energies (T- V) it becomes progressively more complicated for special and general relatively, through to the quantum field theories for the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces.

The pinnacle for complexity is the Lagrangian for the standard model of particle physics.

​

To 99.99% of the population it appears to be nothing more than doodles.
An explanation of each section of this Lagrangian is given here.

There are some things missing in section 3...

 

[sjastro]

There are some things missing in section 3...

I found a problem in section 2; a missing smiley face.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I found a problem in section 2; a missing smiley face.

Everyone knows that the Z-Z interaction is mediated by the .

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why leave it til then .. when one may well have lost the capacity to even pose the question .. let alone form the conclusion?

Indeed. That was the point. Too much talk about what is and isn't real, too little thought about what it means.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am oblige to comment on your hypothesis that claiming a process for natural bricks , is not a hypothesis for self designing , self building houses that self evolve into towns.

Assuming we all accept a 19000 protein factory didn’t spring into existence by lucky chance orientation of molecules with the right tunnel energy, the only postulate ( short of observing it ) is a hypothesis for an intermediate cell for which a pathway is proposed from non life components, which can demonstrate an evolving pathway to present cells.

Without that there is no hypothesis, let alone an evolution theory for origin of life. At present there is an absolute void of hypothesis for abiogenesis.

So abiogenesis is only belief.

Being mischevious , I can again point to Eucharistic miracles that credible forensic labs have stated that beaten heart myocardium is so intimately infused into bread at the edges that they cannot be faked. That white cells prove the samples are alive in vitro. ( which violates accepted science)

So a the theistic origin has more evidence than abiogenesis.
check them out: tixtla , sokolka, buenos airies, legnica.
All different labs. Similar conclusion.

1/ Science is a method for analysis of that which repeats or an be made to repeat, and a model for the repeat behaviour. It has little to say about existence or reality. It explains what things normally do, not what they are..or why they are.

I also distinguish science the process and model, from

2/ scientific realism which is a philosophy that states

2a that the universe is fundamentally predictable it’s state predictable from the previous state, and laws,in which predictability is limited only by complexity , and our ability to elucidate laws not by principle.

2b that the human species is just a biochemical machine, consciousness just a biochemical process, both which stop at death.

Whilst 2/ is held by many scientists, indeed the gate keepers of science orthodoxy. 1/ and 2/ are not the same proposition and 2/ does not imply /1

It is an abuse of position for scientists to proclaim that the two are sequiturs.

Meh .. its a work in progress .. no absolutes in any of it .. there's always room for change in the light of new objective results .. (provisional and contextual).
In the case of dark matter and dark energy, if you were to ask me do I believe that such exists, then all I could say is that it seems to be our best current model.

Does that mean I 'believe in it'? Absolutely not. Nor does it mean I believe there isn't dark matter or dark energy. It means it is simply not a matter of belief at all, and if I do choose to form a belief on that topic, no one else should even care.

So you see why I would also even reject the concept of an 'informed belief'? That's exactly what your (implied) hypothetical question was asking there; if I had an informed belief that dark energy and dark matter were real, but it's the wrong question, in science/Physics.
The right question for the scientific (Physics) thinker is 'does your experience and expertise lead you to regard dark energy/dark matter (etc) as our best current model?', and then their answer would be 'yes', which they can then say without having to stop and ponder just what you were actually asking there and why you would care!
Wrong thread to start arguments about Abiogenesis. See the one I started here, which contains a pretty thorough, up to date, testable hypothesis in the OP.
Y'know I'm not of the mindset to play endless games dancing around the meaning of the word 'evidence' (as though science has (somehow) staked some kind of claim to what 'evidence' must, or must not, be) .. thus, maybe surprisingly, I can easily consider 'theistic evidence' within theistic contexts, should I have the time and inclination to do that.
You are welcomed to support your objectively untestable 'arguments' in theism, until we're both blue in the face, but all we'll ever demonstrate there, when arguing over which is real and which isn't, is two differently thinking mindsets: one which starts from assumed posits believed as being real, (theistic), and a scientifically thinking one following the scientific (objective) method, in order to justify our respective meanings we want to assign to 'what's real' (and what isn't).

Not sure of the point in doing what's already perfectly obvious to me .. (in crystal clarity), though .. which is that differently thinking minds add meaning to our human mind concept denoted by the term 'reality'.
(Re: My underline): Yes .. both require human minds thinking in different ways in order to give meaning to words: 'exists', 'what's real', 'is', or 'reality' .. with those minds both being normal, healthy and human.
.. err .. or, more like: adding meaning to what science means when it uses the term 'universe' (which is based on any kind of objectively obtained, repeatable test results/observations) ..
We more or less expect that model to be updated (based on objective observations from past data, that it has changed before .. many times).
Science doesn't 'believe' anything .. people do that .. and when they think in scientific ways, they add meaning to the scientific concept of 'reality' (which is what I call 'Objective Reality' .. in order to distinguish it from the other way of doing it: aka by believing in posited truths).

 

[SelfSim]

...Without that there is no hypothesis, let alone an evolution theory for origin of life. At present there is an absolute void of hypothesis for abiogenesis.

So abiogenesis is only belief.

An hypothesis is an objectively testable 'belief'.

From the current definition of 'a belief', which I presented earlier:

- 'that which I hold to be true out of preference that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic';

by the latter, (the underlined part), I mean that if we are shown that a set of postulates, which we believe in, leads to contradictions, we are not necessarily required to drop those beliefs, we can simply accept that our beliefs are not a means of proving things.

A similar principle is actually true of physics; ie: when 'physics' is taken as meaning the set of postulates you can find in a library of physics books, is able to 'prove' (i.e., derive) contradictory outcomes, we simply have to navigate the ensuing inconsistencies, by carefully monitoring their contexts. (Note: this is the same meaning which applies for scientific theories, too: ie: contextual and provisional).

I suppose one could regard everything as being a postulate. That's fine for mathematics, but in science, its pretty clear, (going one step beyond to make the point here), that 'self-evident truths', (which is a completely useless term, IMO), in math, doesn't translate into science. Ie: one cannot have an 'axiom of science'. Science is what works, and its method for finding out 'what works', is testing. Nothing in science is taken as being 'self-evident'.

So, there are different kinds of beliefs .. for sure .. (but all beliefs require a human mind to conceive).

I also distinguish science the process and model, from

2/ scientific realism which is a philosophy that states

2a that the universe is fundamentally predictable it’s state predictable from the previous state, and laws,in which predictability is limited only by complexity , and our ability to elucidate laws not by principle.

2b that the human species is just a biochemical machine, consciousness just a biochemical process, both which stop at death.

Whilst 2/ is held by many scientists, indeed the gate keepers of science orthodoxy. 1/ and 2/ are not the same proposition and 2/ does not imply /1

It is an abuse of position for scientists to proclaim that the two are sequiturs.

Hmm .. their definitions of 'the universe' and 'biochemical machine' there, could be stated with objectively testable meanings though .. regardless of the philosophical position argument, (ie: point 2/), and regardless of the abiogenesis 'testable belief postulate' (or hypothesis) .. thus rendering your non-sequitur view there, a moot point (from an MDR perspective) and 'untrue' from theirs.

I'd agree that any results in the future coming from some hypothesis 'under test', is not yet part of objective reality and so an hypothesis which has not yet been tested, yet is testable in theory or practice, is justified as an 'objectively testable belief' under the current (above) version of definition of belief. One who's postulate is not objectively testable however, is just another garden variety belief.

 

[Mountainmike]

My comment does not question the nature of a or your hypothesis.

But whether the hypothesis substantively represents abiogenesis, or instead represents an interesting but largely irrelevant side issue.

My point is even verifying a (1)hypothesis of naturally evolving bricks, may be necessary but is nowhere near sufficient as a (2) hypothesis for self building , evolving houses.

On a separate theme, physics is several things.
1/ A method of analysing repeat phenomena, and the model so created. Modelling presumes an objective causal universe , with single direction time arrow.

2/ The philosophy of scientific realism that presumes the model is not empirical but approximates an underlying objective causal universe.

to prove or disprove the validity of 2/ , Do you agree proof of a phrophesy fulfilled , falsifies the presumption of 2/?

An hypothesis is an objectively testable 'belief'.

From the current definition of 'a belief', which I presented earlier:

- 'that which I hold to be true out of preference that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic';

by the latter, (the underlined part), I mean that if we are shown that a set of postulates, which we believe in, leads to contradictions, we are not necessarily required to drop those beliefs, we can simply accept that our beliefs are not a means of proving things.

A similar principle is actually true of physics; ie: when 'physics' is taken as meaning the set of postulates you can find in a library of physics books, is able to 'prove' (i.e., derive) contradictory outcomes, we simply have to navigate the ensuing inconsistencies, by carefully monitoring their contexts. (Note: this is the same meaning which applies for scientific theories, too: ie: contextual and provisional).

I suppose one could regard everything as being a postulate. That's fine for mathematics, but in science, its pretty clear, (going one step beyond to make the point here), that 'self-evident truths', (which is a completely useless term, IMO), in math, doesn't translate into science. Ie: one cannot have an 'axiom of science'. Science is what works, and its method for finding out 'what works', is testing. Nothing in science is taken as being 'self-evident'.

So, there are different kinds of beliefs .. for sure .. (but all beliefs require a human mind to conceive).
Hmm .. their definitions of 'the universe' and 'biochemical machine' there, could be stated with objectively testable meanings though .. regardless of the philosophical position argument, (ie: point 2/), and regardless of the abiogenesis 'testable belief postulate' (or hypothesis) .. thus rendering your non-sequitur view there, a moot point (from an MDR perspective) and 'untrue' from theirs.

I'd agree that any results in the future coming from some hypothesis 'under test', is not yet part of objective reality and so an hypothesis which has not yet been tested, yet is testable in theory or practice, is justified as an 'objectively testable belief' under the current (above) version of definition of belief. One who's postulate is not objectively testable however, is just another garden variety belief.

 

[SelfSim]

My comment does not question the nature of a or your hypothesis.

But whether the hypothesis substantively represents abiogenesis, or instead represents an interesting but largely irrelevant side issue.

My point is even verifying a (1)hypothesis of naturally evolving bricks, may be necessary but is nowhere near sufficient as a (2) hypothesis for self building , evolving houses.

So, implied in that, seems to be a quest to explain in entirety, the origins and evolution of life, to date, on this planet?
If so, then: 'So what if it has gaps'? That's part of the fun of it .. trying to solve a mystery! And how we go about solving mysteries in science, is by forming objectively testable hypotheses, y'know(?)

Abiogenesis ideas come in the format of hypotheses, and the evolution of life, is a theory.
Other than that, I'm not sure I understand why you see that as being a problem?

On a separate theme, physics is several things.
1/ A method of analysing repeat phenomena, and the model so created. Modelling presumes an objective causal universe , with single direction time arrow.

2/ The philosophy of scientific realism that presumes the model is not empirical but approximates an underlying objective causal universe.

to prove or disprove the validity of 2/ , Do you agree proof of a phrophesy fulfilled , falsifies the presumption of 2/?

Maybe, maybe not .. but you see the whole point of the Mind Dependent Reality hypothesis is to demonstrate the misconception of 'things' asserted as 'existing' (such as 'Physics'), evidently depends entirely on the mind(s) making those assertions.
I for one, am not aware items 1 or 2 appear anywhere as being mandatory assumptions in published and widely taught versions of the scientific method. Science does not need to be conducted under any philosophical assumptions. They are simply totally irrelevant for doing science.
People who claim that such assumptions are necessary for science to exist, can easily be shown that they are mistaken by production of the evidence from the Mind Dependent Reality Hypothesis. Those 'assumptions' there, turn out to be nothing more than their personally preferred beliefs.

The assertion of: 'Modelling presumes an objective causal universe , with .. {whatever}', is directly challenged, with supporting objective evidence from the mind dependent reality hypothesis that: 'a universe' there, means no more than whatever is the last best tested theory. That that testing produces evidence of 'a causal' universe is an inference .. and not some 'absolute truth' (which they may have just chosen for their own personal belief reasons .. they are likely just not aware of their choice there, also).
See, no last best tested theory is ever absolute and 'complete' .. its provisional and contextual .. we never know for sure where it breaks down (aka: its limits).