- #1
Carla1
- 17
- 0
What is intuitive physics?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by Carla1
I see. Thanks. So you would not say intuition is the basis upon which all constructed physics models ultimately rest, I think, if I am reading you correctly. If that is correct, upon what basis do they rest, in your opinion?
He drew a picture and counted the days the moon took from quarter to quarter and from this DEDUCED that the sun was very far away (much farther than the moon, and thus much bigger) which was not something that one can simply look up in the sky and experience.
Originally posted by marcus
I suspect that YOU have some ideas about the cognitive basis of mathematical models of nature. So I should be asking YOU to reveal some of your thinking about this, not the other way around!
You asked: what is "intuitive physics"? I reply that according to Google it is a research field in Developmental Psych. (the study of how children acquire social behavior, skills, language, culture, personality or whatever it is they acquire.
You should come out with your ideas. I will help by giving you some "traction"---some gravel so the road is not so slick---if you want. But I have not thought about it.
I think physics mainly involves mathematical models of nature that let one predict the results of measurements----or anyway the measurements let one refine the parameters in the model.
The quantities in the models have roots in childhood experience----like volume, hard, soft, bigger, smaller, fast, slow, area, length, color, balance, push, swing, bounce, fall, liquid, bubble, musical pitch.
One learns some basic physical properties sometime in childhood probably in the same years that one learns spoken language.
But these are not physical models or laws. They are at the cognitive roots but they are not physics. They are also at the cognitive roots of mathematics (which is about other things as well as number).
A child who gets a rich sensory experience of nature will have
RESOURCES to learn physics later in life, and yet may not learn--may chose to focus on other things.
The job of the physics teacher is to tap into the fund of experience in a way that vitalizes the laws.
BTW the laws are not absolutely true. They get improved-on from time to time. But they are the best we have for the time being and they do work rather well for many purposes.
Experience is more true (my feeling is) than laws. You either went skiing or you did not. You felt certain things. You fell while going down the ski-slope or you did not.
the physical model that is applied to experience is subject to change---Aristotle and Newton would have explained skiing differently, and scuba-diving too, no doubt.
Originally posted by Carla1
Do you think there is a possiblity that the highly-specific mathematical language of physics actually affects the experience of the language-user, of the phenomena and do you think it is possible that models of the universe humanly-constructed over the past couple of thousand years, have affected the experience of existence in cultures in which those models have become commonly accepted?
Originally posted by marcus
this is going too far afield for me
maybe you are in UK and I am in urban California
we have a different cultural ambience
suppose we narrow it down to one thing: the night sky
suppose I go to a remote village in mexico and try to find out how people experience the sky
and then I go out in my city some evening and try to find out how people experience the sky
it might make me sad and confuse me to do this (people in my city mostly cannot see the sky and have very little idea how wonderful it is) but suppose i do it---ask questions, make notes
then suppose I try to relate the difference to some 2500 years of Greco-European mathematics.
Your conjecture is that there would be some clear correlation. The sky-experience of my fellow citizens would differ in a clearcut way from that of the villagers and this clearcut difference would be partly explainable by there having been 2500 years of G-E mathematics.
I suspect not. So this is depressing.
However, on a more cheerful note, any language that you USE a lot, especially with children, CAN expand experience. If you use a rich vocabulary in describing snow and sensations associated with different kinds of snow, the kid will have a richer experience and be able to see more beauty in snow. Same with stars and the night sky I guess---like, the tracks of planets are evidence of a certain geometry, the milkyway shows the geometrical layout of our galaxy, you can point out where the center of the galaxy is, you can visit telescopes etc---these are ways to enrich the experienc of the sky and ways that language (including math ideas like "center" of a pancake shaped galaxy) enhances beauty.
but most people have little experience of mathematics in their language, cannot sing 4-part harmony but prefer to watch other people singing on television, do not vote in elections, and so on
they have voluntarily abandoned the 2500 yr GrecoEuropean culture, with its history of democratic participation in city life, geometry, polyphonic music, astronomy, enjoyment of numbers, theater, dance.
they watch other people dance on television
they watch a movie about a mathematician who likes numbers but do not experience numbers
the night sky overhead usually has a hazy glow that only a few stars get thru so usually we are not really seeing the stars either
i would rather not discuss this.
there is a nice book called "Coming of Age in the Milky Way" by Timothy Ferris. the 2500year history of the expansion of cosmic perspective. every step along the way was made by a passionate human being. each step is of enormous value. who first discovered the distance to a star? who? how? this is our heritage but most of us don't know it. why discuss this in generalities Carla? read the book and learn every step of the way by which we came to know that we live in our galaxy
Originally posted by Carla1
I just realized I included your entire quotes in the last two my posts. That can be ruly annoying...sorry 'bout that.
Originally posted by Carla1
Something pretentious, something foolish, childish, worshipful, something artful may be required in our natures to off-set the dangers of the new God, Science, in interaction between nature and human, being.
Originally posted by marcus
Since you italicize to put special emphasis on art I am trying to think of what typifies art for me----laughter can be part of delighting in works of art, but I wouldn't describe any of my favorite works as foolish. Or childish or worshipful or pretentious.
probably not enough commonality of meaning for discussion to work.
would need more overlap in what we think of as "art-ful" or science-ful too I should imagine. Or "god-ly" too, for that matter.
There may be others at PF with whom you can reach a better understanding---everybody is free to define their own categories
...In the modern european culture, starting from the XVI century, there is a tendency towards quantitative description of nature leaving more and more the qualitative explanations.
A last example of battle between qualitative and quantitative pictures of nature ...
Intuitive physics is the ability to understand and predict the behavior of physical objects and systems without formal training or instruction. It is a natural and intuitive understanding of the basic laws and principles of physics.
Intuitive physics develops through early experiences and interactions with the physical world, such as playing with toys and objects, observing and imitating others, and exploring the environment. It also involves the integration of sensory information and cognitive processes.
Intuitive physics is important because it allows us to interact with the world around us in a meaningful and efficient way. It helps us make predictions, solve problems, and make decisions based on our understanding of the physical world.
Yes, intuitive physics can be improved and trained through hands-on experiences and exposure to different physical phenomena. It can also be enhanced through formal education and training in physics concepts and principles.
Intuitive physics is based on our natural understanding and perception of the physical world, while formal physics is a scientific discipline that uses mathematical models and experiments to explain and predict physical phenomena. Intuitive physics is often less precise and accurate than formal physics, but it is still a valuable and essential aspect of our understanding of the world.