Predictions from Mathematical models

Jan30-05, 03:42 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Premises:\n\n1. "Physics is a collection of mathematical models constrained by\nempirical observation with the object of accurately predicting\nmeasurement outcomes".\n\n2. Today, our mathematical models are relationships between values that\nrepresent measurement outcomes\n\n3. In this scheme, the method for deriving predictions is to take a\nvalue directly from the model and compare it to a real world\nmeasurement\n\n4. There is nothing about physics, or the scientific method, that says\nthis is the one and only way of deriving predictions from mathematical\nmodels.\n\nConclusion:\n\nOne excersize that might pay off in trying to over come what appears to\nbe an irresolvable disagreement in the theories of physics, is\nconsidering a different method of predicting measurment outcomes from\nmathematical models.\n\n\nHere is the idea that I came up with:\n\nInstead of taking a value of of the system, we need to investigate the\nsystem to find out what observers in the system know about the system.\n\nWhat do I mean by that? Say you have some modeled electrons and protons\nand you arrange them into a mercury thermometer.\n\n\n___oo__oo___ooo\n___oo__oo\n___o o__oo___oo\n___oo__oo\n___oo++oo___o\n__oo++++oo\n __oo++++oo\n___oooooo\n\nWhen the motion of the electrons increases, the space they take up\nincreases, and the level of the mercury rises in the thermometer.\n\nThe values of the mathematical model only represent properties of\nparticles, and there is no temperature for an individual particle.\n\nBut if we were to arrange these values in some graphical representation\nlike the one above, we could make the analysis the the level of the\nthermometer is at the single "o" mark.\n\nSo, in the units of temperature that this thermometer is measuring, the\ntemperature in the model is 1 degree.\n\nWe\'ve derived the prediction "1 degree" from our model, but the value\n"1" does not exist in the model itself. The only values in the model\nrepresent the properties of the particles.\n\nThis method of deriving predictions is new. No scientific theory works\nthis way.\n\nIt\'s a simple idea, but honestly, modern data processing power is only\nnow hinting at the possibility. Before computers in the time of\nEinstein and Bohr, they had no possible way to anticipate the power of\ncomputers and the possibility that predictions may be derived from\nmathematical models differently than simply pulling values out of\nequations.\n\nEssentially, physics today describes a world of measurement outcomes.\n\nMy new application for mathematical models describes a world where\nmeasurement takes place. I think it is more suited for quantum and\nrelativistic behavior than the technique Newton established.\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Premises:

1. "Physics is a collection of mathematical models constrained by
empirical observation with the object of accurately predicting
measurement outcomes".

2. Today, our mathematical models are relationships between values that
represent measurement outcomes

3. In this scheme, the method for deriving predictions is to take a
value directly from the model and compare it to a real world
measurement

4. There is nothing about physics, or the scientific method, that says
this is the one and only way of deriving predictions from mathematical
models.

Conclusion:

One excersize that might pay off in trying to over come what appears to
be an irresolvable disagreement in the theories of physics, is
considering a different method of predicting measurment outcomes from
mathematical models.

Here is the idea that I came up with:

Instead of taking a value of of the system, we need to investigate the
system to find out what observers in the system know about the system.

What do I mean by that? Say you have some modeled electrons and protons
and you arrange them into a mercury thermometer.

__{_oo__oo___ooo}
__{_oo__oo}
__{_oo__oo___oo}
__{_oo__oo}
__{_oo}++oo___o
__{oo}++++oo
__{oo}++++oo
__{_oooooo}

When the motion of the electrons increases, the space they take up
increases, and the level of the mercury rises in the thermometer.

The values of the mathematical model only represent properties of
particles, and there is no temperature for an individual particle.

But if we were to arrange these values in some graphical representation
like the one above, we could make the analysis the the level of the
thermometer is at the single "o" mark.

So, in the units of temperature that this thermometer is measuring, the
temperature in the model is 1 degree.

We've derived the prediction "1 degree" from our model, but the value
"1" does not exist in the model itself. The only values in the model
represent the properties of the particles.

This method of deriving predictions is new. No scientific theory works
this way.

It's a simple idea, but honestly, modern data processing power is only
now hinting at the possibility. Before computers in the time of
Einstein and Bohr, they had no possible way to anticipate the power of
computers and the possibility that predictions may be derived from
mathematical models differently than simply pulling values out of
equations.

Essentially, physics today describes a world of measurement outcomes.

My new application for mathematical models describes a world where
measurement takes place. I think it is more suited for quantum and
relativistic behavior than the technique Newton established.
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm

Jan31-05, 12:44 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message\nnews:1107041709.049901.21570@z14g2000cwz. googlegroups.com...\n> Premises:\n>\n<snip>\n> 4. There is nothing about physics, or the scientific method, that says\n> this is the one and only way of deriving predictions from mathematical\n> models.\n> <snip>\n\n> Here is the idea that I came up with:\n>\n> Instead of taking a value of of the system, we need to investigate the\n> system to find out what observers in the system know about the system.\n>\n> What do I mean by that? Say you have some modeled electrons and protons\n> and you arrange them into a mercury thermometer.\n>\n>\n> ___oo__oo___ooo\n> ___oo__oo\n> ___oo__oo___oo\n> ___oo__oo\n> ___oo++oo___o\n> __oo++++oo\n> __oo++++oo\n> ___oooooo\n>\n> When the motion of the electrons increases, the space they take up\n> increases, and the level of the mercury rises in the thermometer.\n>\n> The values of the mathematical model only represent properties of\n> particles, and there is no temperature for an individual particle.\n\nThat\'s right. Although, mathematically, you could create a model where a\nsingle particle had temperature, like if you actually defined temperature as\nthe average kinetic energy of the particles present. It just turns out that\nthe concept itself (of a single particle with temperature) is meaningless,\nand that 1/(d_sigma/d_U) is very meaningful.\n\n>\n> But if we were to arrange these values in some graphical representation\n> like the one above, we could make the analysis the the level of the\n> thermometer is at the single "o" mark.\n>\n> So, in the units of temperature that this thermometer is measuring, the\n> temperature in the model is 1 degree.\n>\n> We\'ve derived the prediction "1 degree" from our model, but the value\n> "1" does not exist in the model itself. The only values in the model\n> represent the properties of the particles.\n\nYour model is that T~V, for a fixed number of particles. Of course, for an\nideal gas, we know that PV = NKT, so this prediction doesn\'t sound too far\noff the mark.\n\nI don\'t see what\'s so new here. A physicist would take an idea like the one\nyou\'ve presented, then write it down mathematically, using experiments to\nfigure out exactly what temperatures the little "o"s correspond to and what\nthe exact relationship is between all of the variables.\n\nSo far, we don\'t really have anything that can be used to predict real world\nphenomena, other than T~V. You, perhaps unwittingly, have given a\nmathematical relationship. However, we can\'t determine what that exact\nrelationship is without experiments.\n\n>\n> This method of deriving predictions is new. No scientific theory works\n> this way.\n>\n\nI\'m sorry, but I don\'t really see what this new thing you\'re trying to get\nat is. If you\'re trying to say that all of physics can be derived logically\nrather than empirically, that\'s provably false. It\'s also empirically\nfalse, since people who have tried to do this, like Aristotle, have failed.\nThat\'s not to say that there aren\'t things that can be determined logically,\nbut exact values and fundimental principles need to be found experimentally.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107041709.049901.21570@z14g200...ro ups.com...
> Premises:
>
<snip>
> 4. There is nothing about physics, or the scientific method, that says
> this is the one and only way of deriving predictions from mathematical
> models.
> <snip>

> Here is the idea that I came up with:
>
> Instead of taking a value of of the system, we need to investigate the
> system to find out what observers in the system know about the system.
>
> What do I mean by that? Say you have some modeled electrons and protons
> and you arrange them into a mercury thermometer.
>
>
> __{_oo__oo___ooo}
> __{_oo__oo}
> __{_oo__oo___oo}
> __{_oo__oo}
> __{_oo}++oo___o
> __{oo}++++oo
> __{oo}++++oo
> __{_oooooo}
>
> When the motion of the electrons increases, the space they take up
> increases, and the level of the mercury rises in the thermometer.
>
> The values of the mathematical model only represent properties of
> particles, and there is no temperature for an individual particle.

That's right. Although, mathematically, you could create a model where a
single particle had temperature, like if you actually defined temperature as
the average kinetic energy of the particles present. It just turns out that
the concept itself (of a single particle with temperature) is meaningless,
and that $LaTeX Code: 1/(d_{sigma}/d_U)$ is very meaningful.

>
> But if we were to arrange these values in some graphical representation
> like the one above, we could make the analysis the the level of the
> thermometer is at the single "o" mark.
>
> So, in the units of temperature that this thermometer is measuring, the
> temperature in the model is 1 degree.
>
> We've derived the prediction "1 degree" from our model, but the value
> "1" does not exist in the model itself. The only values in the model
> represent the properties of the particles.

Your model is that T~V, for a fixed number of particles. Of course, for an
ideal gas, we know that

NKT, so this prediction doesn't sound too far
off the mark.

I don't see what's so new here. A physicist would take an idea like the one
you've presented, then write it down mathematically, using experiments to
figure out exactly what temperatures the little "o"s correspond to and what
the exact relationship is between all of the variables.

So far, we don't really have anything that can be used to predict real world
phenomena, other than T~V. You, perhaps unwittingly, have given a
mathematical relationship. However, we can't determine what that exact
relationship is without experiments.

>
> This method of deriving predictions is new. No scientific theory works
> this way.
>

I'm sorry, but I don't really see what this new thing you're trying to get
at is. If you're trying to say that all of physics can be derived logically
rather than empirically, that's provably false. It's also empirically
false, since people who have tried to do this, like Aristotle, have failed.
That's not to say that there aren't things that can be determined logically,
but exact values and fundimental principles need to be found experimentally.

Feb3-05, 03:55 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mark Palenik wrote:\n> "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message\n> news:1107041709.049901.21570@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...\n> > Premises:\n> >\n> <snip>\n> > 4. There is nothing about physics, or the scientific method, that\nsays\n> > this is the one and only way of deriving predictions from\nmathematical\n> > models.\n> > <snip>\n>\n> > Here is the idea that I came up with:\n> >\n> > Instead of taking a value of of the system, we need to investigate\nthe\n> > system to find out what observers in the system know about the\nsystem.\n> >\n> > What do I mean by that? Say you have some modeled electrons and\nprotons\n> > and you arrange them into a mercury thermometer.\n> >\n> >\n> > ___oo__oo___ooo\n> > ___oo__oo\n> > ___oo__oo___oo\n> > ___oo__oo\n> > ___oo++oo___o\n> > __oo++++oo\n> > __oo++++oo\n> > ___oooooo\n> >\n> > When the motion of the electrons increases, the space they take up\n> > increases, and the level of the mercury rises in the thermometer.\n> >\n> > The values of the mathematical model only represent properties of\n> > particles, and there is no temperature for an individual particle.\n>\n> That\'s right. Although, mathematically, you could create a model\nwhere a\n> single particle had temperature, like if you actually defined\ntemperature as\n> the average kinetic energy of the particles present. It just turns\nout that\n> the concept itself (of a single particle with temperature) is\nmeaningless,\n> and that 1/(d_sigma/d_U) is very meaningful.\n>\n> >\n> > But if we were to arrange these values in some graphical\nrepresentation\n> > like the one above, we could make the analysis the the level of the\n> > thermometer is at the single "o" mark.\n> >\n> > So, in the units of temperature that this thermometer is measuring,\nthe\n> > temperature in the model is 1 degree.\n> >\n> > We\'ve derived the prediction "1 degree" from our model, but the\nvalue\n> > "1" does not exist in the model itself. The only values in the\nmodel\n> > represent the properties of the particles.\n>\n> Your model is that T~V, for a fixed number of particles. Of course,\nfor an\n> ideal gas, we know that PV = NKT, so this prediction doesn\'t sound\ntoo far\n> off the mark.\n>\n> I don\'t see what\'s so new here. A physicist would take an idea like\nthe one\n> you\'ve presented, then write it down mathematically, using\nexperiments to\n> figure out exactly what temperatures the little "o"s correspond to\nand what\n> the exact relationship is between all of the variables.\n>\n> So far, we don\'t really have anything that can be used to predict\nreal world\n> phenomena, other than T~V. You, perhaps unwittingly, have given a\n> mathematical relationship. However, we can\'t determine what that\nexact\n> relationship is without experiments.\n>\n> >\n> > This method of deriving predictions is new. No scientific theory\nworks\n> > this way.\n> >\n>\n> I\'m sorry, but I don\'t really see what this new thing you\'re trying\nto get\n> at is. If you\'re trying to say that all of physics can be derived\nlogically\n> rather than empirically, that\'s provably false. It\'s also\nempirically\n> false, since people who have tried to do this, like Aristotle, have\nfailed.\n> That\'s not to say that there aren\'t things that can be determined\nlogically,\n> but exact values and fundimental principles need to be found\nexperimentally.\n\nHow this applies to temperature doesn\'t seem very radical. I agree.\n\nBut what if this is applied to how we measured velocity?\n\nRight now we make measurements of time and distance, and plug them into\na mathematical model (d/t, pretty easy) and that is velocity.\n\nI assume you agree with my conclusion, that nothing about science\n(except for tradition) says that this is the only way to use\nmathematical models (input what is known, solve for what is not known).\nCorrect?\n\nIn the new suggested approach, you do not measure time or distance and\ninput them. Instead, you have a mathematical model with values as\ninitial conditions and rules that change the values.\n\nThose values, it is postulated, describe the properties of particles.\n\nWe must configure those values, which effectively \'arranges\' the\nparticles they represent, into a structure that is capable of observing\nthe mathematical model in which the structure exists.\n\nThis observer will then perform measurements of space and time, and\nthen will say that "in 5 ticks of my watch, the object moved 6\ndistances of my rules", which is effectively velocity.\n\nIn this approach to science, the values, the inputs, are not comparable\nto the outcome of measurement. Instead, only what is measured from\nwithin the mathematical model itself, by an observer who exists and\nfunctions purely within the mathematical model, is comparable to the\noutcome of our measurements.\n\nIt is a very simple idea, but it is very very different from anything\nphysics has attempted so far. So the stronger your inution towards\ncurrent physics is, the harder this will be to comprehend.\n\nBut if you think about it, this is exactly the type of innovation to\nmathematical models that quantum and realtivistic phenomena cry out for.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mark Palenik wrote:
> "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1107041709.049901.21570@z14g200...ro ups.com...
> > Premises:
> >
> <snip>
> > 4. There is nothing about physics, or the scientific method, that
says
> > this is the one and only way of deriving predictions from
mathematical
> > models.
> > <snip>
>
> > Here is the idea that I came up with:
> >
> > Instead of taking a value of of the system, we need to investigate
the
> > system to find out what observers in the system know about the
system.
> >
> > What do I mean by that? Say you have some modeled electrons and
protons
> > and you arrange them into a mercury thermometer.
> >
> >
> > __{_oo__oo___ooo}
> > __{_oo__oo}
> > __{_oo__oo___oo}
> > __{_oo__oo}
> > __{_oo}++oo___o
> > __{oo}++++oo
> > __{oo}++++oo
> > __{_oooooo}
> >
> > When the motion of the electrons increases, the space they take up
> > increases, and the level of the mercury rises in the thermometer.
> >
> > The values of the mathematical model only represent properties of
> > particles, and there is no temperature for an individual particle.
>
> That's right. Although, mathematically, you could create a model
where a
> single particle had temperature, like if you actually defined
temperature as
> the average kinetic energy of the particles present. It just turns
out that
> the concept itself (of a single particle with temperature) is
meaningless,
> and that $LaTeX Code: 1/(d_{sigma}/d_U)$ is very meaningful.
>
> >
> > But if we were to arrange these values in some graphical
representation
> > like the one above, we could make the analysis the the level of the
> > thermometer is at the single "o" mark.
> >
> > So, in the units of temperature that this thermometer is measuring,
the
> > temperature in the model is 1 degree.
> >
> > We've derived the prediction "1 degree" from our model, but the
value
> > "1" does not exist in the model itself. The only values in the
model
> > represent the properties of the particles.
>
> Your model is that T~V, for a fixed number of particles. Of course,
for an
> ideal gas, we know that

NKT, so this prediction doesn't sound
too far
> off the mark.
>
> I don't see what's so new here. A physicist would take an idea like
the one
> you've presented, then write it down mathematically, using
experiments to
> figure out exactly what temperatures the little "o"s correspond to
and what
> the exact relationship is between all of the variables.
>
> So far, we don't really have anything that can be used to predict
real world
> phenomena, other than T~V. You, perhaps unwittingly, have given a
> mathematical relationship. However, we can't determine what that
exact
> relationship is without experiments.
>
> >
> > This method of deriving predictions is new. No scientific theory
works
> > this way.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't really see what this new thing you're trying
to get
> at is. If you're trying to say that all of physics can be derived
logically
> rather than empirically, that's provably false. It's also
empirically
> false, since people who have tried to do this, like Aristotle, have
failed.
> That's not to say that there aren't things that can be determined
logically,
> but exact values and fundimental principles need to be found
experimentally.

How this applies to temperature doesn't seem very radical. I agree.

But what if this is applied to how we measured velocity?

Right now we make measurements of time and distance, and plug them into
a mathematical model

pretty easy) and that is velocity.

I assume you agree with my conclusion, that nothing about science
(except for tradition) says that this is the only way to use
mathematical models (input what is known, solve for what is not known).
Correct?

In the new suggested approach, you do not measure time or distance and
input them. Instead, you have a mathematical model with values as
initial conditions and rules that change the values.

Those values, it is postulated, describe the properties of particles.

We must configure those values, which effectively 'arranges' the
particles they represent, into a structure that is capable of observing
the mathematical model in which the structure exists.

This observer will then perform measurements of space and time, and
then will say that "in 5 ticks of my watch, the object moved 6
distances of my rules", which is effectively velocity.

In this approach to science, the values, the inputs, are not comparable
to the outcome of measurement. Instead, only what is measured from
within the mathematical model itself, by an observer who exists and
functions purely within the mathematical model, is comparable to the
outcome of our measurements.

It is a very simple idea, but it is very very different from anything
physics has attempted so far. So the stronger your inution towards
current physics is, the harder this will be to comprehend.

But if you think about it, this is exactly the type of innovation to
mathematical models that quantum and realtivistic phenomena cry out for.

Feb4-05, 11:40 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<1107290603.547138.191110@c13g2000cwb.goog legroups.com>...\n> Mark Palenik wrote:\n> > "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message\n> > news:1107041709.049901.21570@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...\n[snip]\n> In the new suggested approach, you do not measure time or distance and\n> input them. Instead, you have a mathematical model with values as\n> initial conditions and rules that change the values.\n>\n> Those values, it is postulated, describe the properties of particles.\n\nThose values and those propeties are those observed and measured by\nthe "subjective realty" you mention in the other thread.\n\n> We must configure those values, which effectively \'arranges\' the\n> particles they represent, into a structure that is capable of observing\n> the mathematical model in which the structure exists.\n>\n> This observer will then perform measurements of space and time, and\n> then will say that "in 5 ticks of my watch, the object moved 6\n> distances of my rules", which is effectively velocity.\n>\n> In this approach to science, the values, the inputs, are not comparable\n> to the outcome of measurement. Instead, only what is measured from\n> within the mathematical model itself, by an observer who exists and\n> functions purely within the mathematical model, is comparable to the\n> outcome of our measurements.\n>\n> It is a very simple idea, but it is very very different from anything\n> physics has attempted so far. So the stronger your inution towards\n> current physics is, the harder this will be to comprehend.\n\nI fully agree with you in gender, number, grade, case and declination.\nI just cannot comprehend what usefulness would have a mathematic model\nwithout comparing it to the real world. How would you know there is\nsomething wrong with your model if you don\'t apply your results to the\nmesurable Universe?\n\n> But if you think about it, this is exactly the type of innovation to\n> mathematical models that quantum and realtivistic phenomena cry out for.\n\nSorry to disagree, but I think that more powerfull particle\naccelerators and careful observation would be a better tool.\nI may be wrong.\nGood luck, in any case.\nMeia-noite\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<1107290603.547138.191110@c13g2... roups.com>...
> Mark Palenik wrote:
> > "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1107041709.049901.21570@z14g200...ro ups.com...
[snip]
> In the new suggested approach, you do not measure time or distance and
> input them. Instead, you have a mathematical model with values as
> initial conditions and rules that change the values.
>
> Those values, it is postulated, describe the properties of particles.

Those values and those propeties are those observed and measured by
the "subjective realty" you mention in the other thread.

> We must configure those values, which effectively 'arranges' the
> particles they represent, into a structure that is capable of observing
> the mathematical model in which the structure exists.
>
> This observer will then perform measurements of space and time, and
> then will say that "in 5 ticks of my watch, the object moved 6
> distances of my rules", which is effectively velocity.
>
> In this approach to science, the values, the inputs, are not comparable
> to the outcome of measurement. Instead, only what is measured from
> within the mathematical model itself, by an observer who exists and
> functions purely within the mathematical model, is comparable to the
> outcome of our measurements.
>
> It is a very simple idea, but it is very very different from anything
> physics has attempted so far. So the stronger your inution towards
> current physics is, the harder this will be to comprehend.

I fully agree with you in gender, number, grade, case and declination.
I just cannot comprehend what usefulness would have a mathematic model
without comparing it to the real world. How would you know there is
something wrong with your model if you don't apply your results to the
mesurable Universe?

> But if you think about it, this is exactly the type of innovation to
> mathematical models that quantum and realtivistic phenomena cry out for.

Sorry to disagree, but I think that more powerfull particle
accelerators and careful observation would be a better tool.
I may be wrong.
Good luck, in any case.
Meia-noite

Feb4-05, 11:40 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Your proposal that "Instead, only what is measured from within the\nmathematical model itself, by an observer who exists and\nfunctions purely within the mathematical model, is comparable to the\noutcome of our measurements." is part of Bostrom\' s simulation argument\nand central to the IGUS proposal of Gell-Mann et al. and is probably\nnot feasible.\n\nThis subject is dangerously on the edge of the scope of a physics forum\nbut, suffice to say, Bostrom and the IGUS are highly contentious. See\nfor instance:\n\nThe Wikipedia article on Artificial Consciousness\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness\nand for an original source on the simulation argument:\nThe Simulation Argument by Nick Bostrom\nhttp://www.simulation-argument.com/\nand\nAre people computers?\nhttp://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/strongai.htm\n\nBest Wishes\n\nAlex Green\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Your proposal that "Instead, only what is measured from within the
mathematical model itself, by an observer who exists and
functions purely within the mathematical model, is comparable to the
outcome of our measurements." is part of Bostrom' s simulation argument
and central to the IGUS proposal of Gell-Mann et al. and is probably
not feasible.

This subject is dangerously on the edge of the scope of a physics forum
but, suffice to say, Bostrom and the IGUS are highly contentious. See
for instance:

The Wikipedia article on Artificial Consciousness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness
and for an original source on the simulation argument:
The Simulation Argument by Nick Bostrom
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
and
Are people computers?
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/strongai.htm

Best Wishes

Alex Green

Feb5-05, 09:11 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>meia-noite wrote:\n> "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message\nnews:<1107290603.547138.191110@c13g200 0cwb.googlegroups.com>...\n> > Mark Palenik wrote:\n> > > "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message\n> > > news:1107041709.049901.21570@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...\n> [snip]\n> > In the new suggested approach, you do not measure time or distance\nand\n> > input them. Instead, you have a mathematical model with values as\n> > initial conditions and rules that change the values.\n> >\n> > Those values, it is postulated, describe the properties of\nparticles.\n>\n> Those values and those propeties are those observed and measured by\n> the "subjective realty" you mention in the other thread.\n>\n> > We must configure those values, which effectively \'arranges\' the\n> > particles they represent, into a structure that is capable of\nobserving\n> > the mathematical model in which the structure exists.\n> >\n> > This observer will then perform measurements of space and time, and\n> > then will say that "in 5 ticks of my watch, the object moved 6\n> > distances of my rules", which is effectively velocity.\n> >\n> > In this approach to science, the values, the inputs, are not\ncomparable\n> > to the outcome of measurement. Instead, only what is measured from\n> > within the mathematical model itself, by an observer who exists and\n> > functions purely within the mathematical model, is comparable to\nthe\n> > outcome of our measurements.\n> >\n> > It is a very simple idea, but it is very very different from\nanything\n> > physics has attempted so far. So the stronger your inution towards\n> > current physics is, the harder this will be to comprehend.\n>\n> I fully agree with you in gender, number, grade, case and\ndeclination.\n> I just cannot comprehend what usefulness would have a mathematic\nmodel\n> without comparing it to the real world. How would you know there is\n> something wrong with your model if you don\'t apply your results to\nthe\n> mesurable Universe?\n\nBut I am applying the results to the measureable universe.\n\nAll I am saying is that there may be more than one way of deriving that\nresult (the prediction) from the model.\n\nIn an alternative method, the values in the model are not the\npredictions.\n\nThe values may form structures, such as a thermometer, or, presumably,\nan observer.\n\nThe modeled observer (defined and operating purely by values in a\nmathematical system) then makes measurements. For example, the observer\nmakes a measurement with his clock, and writes that measurement down on\na piece of paper. A very simple way of viewing this is 0 = a molecule\nof the paper, and 1 = a molecule of ink. Here is what we find in our\nmathematical system:\n\n000000000\n001111100\n001000000\n001110 000\n000001100\n000000100\n000001100\n001111000\n0 00000000\n\nDo you see the "5" written there? The "5" doesn\'t exist as a value in\nthe system. But the "5" is the prediction, which is what we should\ncompare to our real world experiments.\n\nEssentially this is how to think of it:\n\nWe don\'t predict based on the values of the system; we predict by\ncreating an observer *in* the values of the system and then we attempt\nto learn what the observer has learned about their environment. Once we\nhave found that out, we can test that knowledge against the real world\nto determine the accuracy of the model.\n\nNo physics works this way, but if you think about the implications of\nQM and SR, this new approach only makes sense.\n\nThis, I think, is merely an expansion on what Leibniz, Zuse, Fredkin,\nand others have put forward, and it incorporates new ideas about\nphysical concepts put forward by Barbour, Lynds and others. It is also\na reinvention of Heisenberg\'s own interpretation of his uncertainty\nprinciple.\n\nDue to the radical shift in thinking this requires, your best chance at\nunderstanding this, I\'m afriad, is read the following web page a couple\ntimes and post specific questions to this newsgroup:\n\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>meia-noite wrote:
> "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1107290603.547138.191110@c13g2... roups.com>...
> > Mark Palenik wrote:
> > > "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1107041709.049901.21570@z14g200...ro ups.com...
> [snip]
> > In the new suggested approach, you do not measure time or distance
and
> > input them. Instead, you have a mathematical model with values as
> > initial conditions and rules that change the values.
> >
> > Those values, it is postulated, describe the properties of
particles.
>
> Those values and those propeties are those observed and measured by
> the "subjective realty" you mention in the other thread.
>
> > We must configure those values, which effectively 'arranges' the
> > particles they represent, into a structure that is capable of
observing
> > the mathematical model in which the structure exists.
> >
> > This observer will then perform measurements of space and time, and
> > then will say that "in 5 ticks of my watch, the object moved 6
> > distances of my rules", which is effectively velocity.
> >
> > In this approach to science, the values, the inputs, are not
comparable
> > to the outcome of measurement. Instead, only what is measured from
> > within the mathematical model itself, by an observer who exists and
> > functions purely within the mathematical model, is comparable to
the
> > outcome of our measurements.
> >
> > It is a very simple idea, but it is very very different from
anything
> > physics has attempted so far. So the stronger your inution towards
> > current physics is, the harder this will be to comprehend.
>
> I fully agree with you in gender, number, grade, case and
declination.
> I just cannot comprehend what usefulness would have a mathematic
model
> without comparing it to the real world. How would you know there is
> something wrong with your model if you don't apply your results to
the
> mesurable Universe?

But I am applying the results to the measureable universe.

All I am saying is that there may be more than one way of deriving that
result (the prediction) from the model.

In an alternative method, the values in the model are not the
predictions.

The values may form structures, such as a thermometer, or, presumably,
an observer.

The modeled observer (defined and operating purely by values in a
mathematical system) then makes measurements. For example, the observer
makes a measurement with his clock, and writes that measurement down on
a piece of paper. A very simple way of viewing this is = a molecule
of the paper, and

molecule of ink. Here is what we find in our
mathematical system:

000000000
001111100
001000000
001110000
000001100
000000100
000001100
001111000
000000000

Do you see the "5" written there? The "5" doesn't exist as a value in
the system. But the "5" is the prediction, which is what we should
compare to our real world experiments.

Essentially this is how to think of it:

We don't predict based on the values of the system; we predict by
creating an observer *in* the values of the system and then we attempt
to learn what the observer has learned about their environment. Once we
have found that out, we can test that knowledge against the real world
to determine the accuracy of the model.

No physics works this way, but if you think about the implications of
QM and SR, this new approach only makes sense.

This, I think, is merely an expansion on what Leibniz, Zuse, Fredkin,
and others have put forward, and it incorporates new ideas about
physical concepts put forward by Barbour, Lynds and others. It is also
a reinvention of Heisenberg's own interpretation of his uncertainty
principle.

Due to the radical shift in thinking this requires, your best chance at
understanding this, I'm afriad, is read the following web page a couple
times and post specific questions to this newsgroup:

http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm

Feb11-05, 03:47 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes, status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usene t ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>". "Physics is a collection of mathematical models constrained by\nempirical observation with the object of accurately predicting\nmeasurement outcomes"."\n\nAs a mathematician who has worked in theoretical physics, I find\nthat a dangerous premise! Certainly theories are largely mathematical\nmodels but there must be some "physics" of the real world outside the\nmodels (or theories) on which you can perform experiments to determine\nhow good the models (theories) are!\n\n\n\nI am a professor of mathematics at Gallaudet University, the only four\nyear, liberal arts college specifically for deaf and hard of hearing in\nthe world.------------------------------------------------------------------------\nThis post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com\nTo view this post with LaTeX images:\nhttp://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=61845#post452034\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>". "Physics is a collection of mathematical models constrained by
empirical observation with the object of accurately predicting
measurement outcomes"."

As a mathematician who has worked in theoretical physics, I find
that a dangerous premise! Certainly theories are largely mathematical
models but there must be some "physics" of the real world outside the
models (or theories) on which you can perform experiments to determine
how good the models (theories) are!

I am a professor of mathematics at Gallaudet University, the only four
year, liberal arts college specifically for deaf and hard of hearing in
the world.------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com
To view this post with LaTeX images:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...845#post452034