Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.math |
| Subject | Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right |
| Date | 2025-11-13 10:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mnlknrFlrnaU4@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <10et7q2$5iu5$1@dont-email.me> <mng6tnFouopU2@mid.individual.net> <10f04fr$vm8o$1@dont-email.me> <mnithlF7reuU4@mid.individual.net> <10f2pn9$1mkfd$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Am Mittwoch000012, 12.11.2025 um 21:12 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > Den 12.11.2025 09:13, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Dienstag000011, 11.11.2025 um 20:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>> >>> No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening". >>> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects >>> of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions >>> of what will be measured or observed in some experiments. > >> I do not agree. > > So you claim that a theory of physics can "describe what's > really happening"? > >> I actually think, that models and reality are two distict entities. > > As opposed to what I think? >> Models are useful, but nature is not. > > > A statement void of meaning > For what are "models" useful, and for what is "nature" not useful? > A model is a simplyfied representation of something. It has the advantage of being able to be computed and to make predictions. But usually the predictions and the real thing differ to some degree, because the model works upon entirely different principles than the real thing does. Therefore, we need to decide: do we want usability or precision? >> Nature is as nature is and that is not supposed to serve our demands. > > > "Nature is not supposed to serve our demands." > > Don't you understand that this is an idiotic statement? well, in a way you are right. I meant: we cannot assume, that nature is like nature is, because we want it that way. Nature decides, what is right and what is wrong and not we human beings. To create good modells we need good understanding of the acting principles, which nature actually uses. But we can't use the same principles in models, because such a model could not be computed and would take foreever to make any predictions. That's why we need to give up predictions and computability, if we want to describe, how nature functions. For a model we need something different, hence use simplyfied approximations. This makes models computable, but unfortunately also less precise. >> >> To make calculations possible we use simplyfied versions of the real >> world, call that 'model' and let them run in computers. >> >> But that is NOT how nature functions, not even close. >> >> If we want to understand nature, we had to give up our demands for >> usuable models, because we can safely assume, that nature itself does >> not use computers. > > So you are claiming that to understand nature we must not > use theories of physics because nature itself doesn't use > computers. 'Nature' is meant as synonym for everything, that is not created by men. This 'everything else than manmade' is functioning somehow. And our taks is, to find out, how this functions. If we would, this wouldn't help us at all in even the simplest of tasks, because such tasks are actually related to manmade devices. > And then we will "understand nature"? :-D No, not at all. But we can safely assume, that nature does not use computers. > ----------------------- > > Now let's look at a meaningful statement: > > No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening". > A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects > of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions > of what will be measured or observed in some experiments. That is total nonsense. If you insist on usuablity, you already failed to understand something. > This means that a theory of physics is _not_ "nature" or > "the reality". And we can never "understand nature". > Theories of physics are mathematical models. > We can understand these models. > And these models can actually help us designing mechanical > and electrical appliances and machinery. If you give up the wish to understand nature, than all your efforts are a waste of time. ... TH
Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Tyler Bukoski <iuvyk@rsttyoyuj.pl> - 2025-11-10 17:36 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-11 08:34 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-11 20:58 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Colomer Kalakos <rkmo@krmklra.gr> - 2025-11-12 00:34 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-12 09:13 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Raymon Raimanov <oay@ormmao.ru> - 2025-11-12 18:37 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-12 21:12 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-13 10:01 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-13 21:38 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 07:42 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-14 13:08 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 13:39 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Stetson Sówka <ktt@ewshr.pl> - 2025-11-14 18:14 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Wendyl Agelakos <na@las.gr> - 2025-11-16 13:30 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-17 09:37 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:12 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:16 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:26 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:28 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:33 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:41 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 12:06 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-27 08:09 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Efrain Ślusarski <iiiar@fesl.pl> - 2025-11-28 12:48 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-12 18:13 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-12 21:56 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-12 22:31 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-13 12:10 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-13 13:16 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-13 22:56 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 07:48 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-14 12:15 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Cleveland Balabaev <aave@nnal.ru> - 2025-11-14 11:36 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 13:37 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-15 15:27 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-15 16:05 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-15 21:09 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-15 21:25 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Jerrell Kántor <ktl@rrkojh.hu> - 2025-11-16 13:21 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-16 14:27 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-16 09:43 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-16 12:11 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Erin Schuhmacher <irre@ms.de> - 2025-11-12 00:30 +0000
csiph-web