Register to reply 
Mathematical models 
Share this thread: 
#1
Jan2007, 03:21 AM

P: 38

"In these and similar ways, the progress of science has itself shown that there can be no pictorial representation of the workings of nature of a kind which would be intelligible to our limited minds. The study of physics has driven us to the positivist conception of physics. We can never understand what events are, but must limit ourselves to describing the pattern of events in mathematical terms; no other aim is possible  at least until man becomes endowed with more senses than he at present possesses. Physicists who are trying to understand nature may work in many different fields and by many different methods; one may dig, one may sow, one may reap. But the final harvest will always be a sheaf of mathematical formulae. These will never describe nature itself, but only our observations on nature. Our studies can never put us into contact with reality; we can never penetrate beyond the impressions that reality implants in our minds.
Although we can never devise a pictorial representation which shall be both true to nature and intelligible to our minds, we may still be able to make partial aspects of the truth comprehensible through pictorial representations or parables. As the whole truth does not admit of intelligible representation, every such pictorial representation or parable must fail somewhere. The physicist of the last generation was continually making pictorial representations and parables, and also making the mistake of treating the halftruths of pictorial representations and parables as literal truths. He did not see that all the concrete details of his picture  his luminiferous ether, his electric and magnetic forces, and possibly his atoms and electrons as well  were mere articles of clothing that he had himself draped over the mathematical symbols; they did not belong to the world of reality, but to the parables by which he had tried to make reality comprehensible. For instance, when observation was. found to suggest that light was of the nature of waves, it became customary to describe it as undulations in a rigid homogeneous ether which filled the whole of space. The only ascertained fact in this description is contained in the one word 'undulations', and even this must be understood in the narrowest mathematical sense; all the rest is pictorial detail, introduced to help out the limitations of our minds. Kronecker is quoted as saying that in arithmetic God made the integers and man made the rest; in the same spirit we may perhaps say that in physics God made the mathematics and man made the rest. To sum up, physics tries to discover the pattern of events which controls the phenomena we observe. But we can never know what this pattern means or how it originates; and even if some superior intelligence were to tell us, we should find the explanation unintelligible. Our studies can never put us into contact with reality, and its true meaning and nature must be for ever hidden from us. " The above is a quote from physics and philosophy by sir fames jeans I want to know if the position he stated in this passage hold for most philosophiers and scienctist? ( note: i am not asking for your opinion. I am asking if the position that is stated is widely accepted or not.) 


#2
Jan2007, 03:42 AM

HW Helper
P: 1,806

Is it held by you?



#3
Jan2007, 04:18 AM

P: 38




#4
Jan2007, 06:18 AM

HW Helper
P: 1,806

Mathematical models
You were the one who posed the question. It just seemed like you should start by giving us your interpretation.



#5
Jan2007, 11:49 AM

P: 1,295

Perhaps this philosophy would find solice in contemporary nihilism, because those philosophers argue using many of the same techniques which are used by logical positivist. The bottom line is that humans have not evolved to the point where positivism is appropriate, there is still too much out there too learn i.e. in ptolemy's day only the kinematics of planetary motion were discussed and not the dynamics because positivism was in vogue. 


#6
Jan2007, 01:55 PM

P: 38

than may i ask what is the modern conception? 


#7
Jan2007, 02:05 PM

P: 38

ok. My answer is some where bettween yes and no. 


#8
Jan2007, 02:11 PM

HW Helper
P: 1,806

If mathematical models didn't fit nature, wouldn't that be more odd?



#9
Jan2007, 02:28 PM

P: 38




#10
Jan2007, 02:40 PM

HW Helper
P: 1,806




#11
Jan2107, 02:01 AM

P: 38

Yes. read feymann ` s character of physical laws 


#12
Jan2107, 12:16 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,091

I disagree entirely with the philosophy espoused in the opening post.
Mistake #1: equating "human pictorial representation" with "understanding". (just what the heck is "human pictorial represntation" anyways?) Mistake #2: assuming that we cannot picture things faithfully. Mistake #3: assuming that observation is insufficient for studying reality. 


#13
Jan2107, 03:09 PM

P: 38

If "pictorial representation" is not the way to ture understanding, and i am curious as to what "is" true understanding? People can reduce physical phenonmen to fundemental laws, and even reduce those those laws from a more fundenmental set of physical laws, but we will never be able to explain the origin of those laws, why they exist, or why they have the form that they do. Therefore, I assert that true understanding can never be attained. We can only content with what we can do, which is to extract patterns and regularities in nature. 


#14
Jan2107, 03:13 PM

HW Helper
P: 1,806

Paraphrasing: "We must be content with what we can do, which is to extract patterns and regularities in nature."
Okay then. 


#15
Jan2107, 03:46 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,091

(And how can you assert that when you don't even know what true understanding is?) 


#16
Jan2107, 04:14 PM

P: 38

the reason i ask is not because i " don t know". I was merely trying to understand your point of view. Don t tell me it is irrelevent if you can t see the connection. If all we can understand are patterns, but without deep understanding of why they are what they are, then how can there be complete understanding? 


#17
Jan2107, 04:31 PM

HW Helper
P: 1,806

Let's suppose that you did know by some miracle why those patterns were there. That would mean that you knew about some other existents in another universe or whatever. But then you wouldn't know why that other universe was there. You would still not have complete understanding, right?
So perhaps complete understanding would be understanding those why's to infinity, an infinity of why's. But then why is it that there is an infinity of why's? So what is it exactly that you could know to complete your understanding, if you could know it? 


#18
Jan2107, 05:17 PM

P: 38

I don t know what you trying to say here. It is too vague for me. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Spice models  Electrical Engineering  0  
Climate Models  Earth  7  
Toy Models of QM  General Physics  0 