If I asked a religious person about his beliefs and asked a question and he then he proceeded to answer in his set of sacred concepts. I would naturally ask about the meaning of the concepts. Expecting consistency, would it not be reasonable? If he turned towards shutting down my query because it was a vexation, then obviously I would look elsewhere.Dale said:No, that is where people raising this concern are overblowing it. The wholly correct way of saying this is that "the concept of the electron was invented and then experimental results were discovered showing that the real world indeed had the same structure as the structure of the electron". That is very cumbersome to say so we say "the electron was discovered". Scientists understand what is meant. Professionals in any profession often communicate succinctly in ways that are not always understood by non-professionals. This is such a case. There is no confusion here by scientists.
As I wrote before, and I write it almost on a daily basis, physics is not about finding the truth (TM). We use math to DESCRIBE the world.Iloveyou said:Words and concepts hold information, but they are not actors within the world they describe
This is really a good example of what I mean when I say that this concern is overblown. Scientists are not Goons.Ibix said:I recall an episode of the Goon Show where they were trekking through the jungle. Major Bludnock (I think) says that they've comme to this river on this map. "What's the river doing on the map?" demands Neddie Seagoon. "Put it back in its banks!" Which they do, but then come to regret it when they realize they now have to get across the river when they could have walked across the dry bed before.[1]
I don't think anyone (except the Goons) who needs to worry about it is likely to have any trouble distinguishing "the river" from "the blue line on the map" even if we do say things like "there's a river on the map". Similarly "we discovered the electron".
[1] They build a raft to cross the river. The same gag is repeated at the next river, but they have to build a bigger raft because they have to get themselves and the first raft across this river. It was that sort of programme...
Then according to the context mentioned, the description, the electron, could not act on the world, hence this point is very important in describing the world...malawi_glenn said:As I wrote before, and I write it almost on a daily basis, physics is not about finding the truth (TM). We use math to DESCRIBE the world.
Yes, everyone is aware of that. Which is why your concern is overblown.Iloveyou said:but the information is not the actual thing it informs us about.
Did I shut down your query? No. I explained it clearly, and I also explained why the concern that you feel is needless.Iloveyou said:If I asked a religious person about his beliefs and asked a question and he then he proceeded to answer in his set of sacred concepts. I would naturally ask about the meaning of the concepts. Expecting consistency, would it not be reasonable? If he turned towards shutting down my query because it was a vexation, then obviously I would look elsewhere.
And I as i wrote before "an electron is an electron, don't tell it what it should be". Physicsists are aware of this. Look at a tree with your eyes and try to describe it as best as you can. You will never be able to catch its true nature. But you can try to do your best and see if you can learn anything that can also be said about other trees and plants.Iloveyou said:Then according to the context mentioned, the description of the electron could not act on the world, hence this point is very important in describing the world...
According to the context I mentioned. The tree is in the world and the electron is not.malawi_glenn said:And I as i wrote before "an electron is an electron, don't tell it what it should be". Physicsists are aware of this. Look at a tree with your eyes and try to describe it as best as you can. You will never be able to catch its true nature. But you can try to do your best and see if you can learn anything that can also be said about other trees and plants.
You seem to be looking for the truth. Physics is nothing for you then. Look elsewhere.
You are saying that the electron does not exist.Iloveyou said:The tree is in the world and the electron is not.
Mathematical structures don't exist in the world, they are useful tools describing the world. Math does not act on the world. With that in mind, it is not without meaning, just as electrons are not without meaning. It is meaning itself, but meaning doesn't act as a physical object in the world.malawi_glenn said:You are saying that the electron does not exist.
Why does the tree exist and not the electron?
Electrons topple trees every day through lightning.Iloveyou said:According to the context I mentioned. The tree is in the world and the electron is not.
Electrons as mathematical models describe that process, they don't act on the tree...bob012345 said:Electrons topple trees every day through lightning.
Yes, everyone understands that. We are not Goons.Iloveyou said:Mathematical structures don't exist in the world, they are useful tools describing the world. Math does not act on the world. With that in mind, it is not without meaning, just as electrons are not without meaning. It is meaning itself, but meaning doesn't act as a physical object in the world.
No. Electrons as physical objects knock over trees.Iloveyou said:Electrons as mathematical models describe that process, they don't act on the tree...
For those hundreds of millions of years we didn't have this mathematical construct and it also occured. The mathematical construct describes well the behavior, yes, but it does not act on the tree.DaveC426913 said:No. Electrons as physical objects knock over trees.
They have been doing that since long before (hundreds of millions of years before) humans came along to describe what they're doing, and would have done so for a long time to come even if we had not invented math to describe them.
Never said you are. Not pointing to new knowledge.Dale said:Yes, everyone understands that. We are not Goons.
That's exactly what I said.Iloveyou said:For those hundreds of millions of years we didn't have this mathematical construct and it also occured. The mathematical construct describes well the behavior, yes, but it does not act on the tree.
Are you sure? It really seems like you think we are confusing the map with the territory, like the Goons. If you understand that we are not, then what remains to discuss here?Iloveyou said:Never said you are.
We are capable of both having a mathematical description of a thing and recognizing the thing itself acting in nature.Iloveyou said:For those hundreds of millions of years we didn't have this mathematical construct and it also occurred. The mathematical construct describes well the behavior, yes, but it does not act on the tree.
That is a philosophical statement. We actually do not know this, and it is not something that can be scientificly discovered either. If you want to read about somthing that is on the opposite side of that spectrum, read "our mathematical universe" by Max Tegmark. It is just semantics. Force is also just a mathematical description concering an abstract "interaction" between two objects that can change their velocity in propotion to their mass (in classical physics that is). Does forces really exists? Who knows, and who cares? Forces are very nice to use when describing phenomema and that is what physics is about.Iloveyou said:Mathematical structures don't exist in the world
The context of my question and the implications that I have mentioned.Dale said:Are you sure? It really seems like you think we are confusing the map with the territory, like the Goons. If you understand that we are not, then what remains to discuss here?
Yes, nobody but you is suggesting that anyone believes otherwise.Iloveyou said:mathematical models not being physical entities that strike down trees.
Before theory of gravity, gravity still was an unnamed force. The mathematical aspect is the descriptive definition. The description has never acted. When you act, it is not your name that is acting.malawi_glenn said:That is a philosophical statement. We actually do not know this, and it is not something that can be scientificly discovered either. If you want to read about somthing that is on the opposite side of that spectrum, read "our mathematical universe" by Max Tegmark. It is just semantics. Force is also just a mathematical description concering an abstract "interaction" between two objects that can change their velocity in propotion to their mass (in classical physics that is). Does forces really exists? Who knows, and who cares? Forces are very nice to use when describing phenomema and that is what physics is about.
This thread is not a scientific discussion, it is a (pseudo)philosophical discussion.
If want some reading material about the philosophy of science and physics and the scientific method, I am happy to give you some. Not that I am sure that would change your mind but it might help you understand why physicsts work the say they do.
Yes, nobody but you is suggesting that anyone believes otherwise.Iloveyou said:The description has never acted. When you act, it is not your name that is acting.
How is that a proof that mathematical structures do not exist in the world?Iloveyou said:Before theory of gravity, gravity still was an unnamed force. The mathematical aspect is the descriptive definition. The description has never acted. When you act, it is not your name that is acting.
Wondering the same.phinds said:Jeez, how long is this <expletive deleted> going to go on ?
Exactly.malawi_glenn said:This guy is not here to learn about science that's for sure.
And the word 'squirrel' doesn't live in the tree in my yard. But the 'thing' that the word describes does.Iloveyou said:mathematical models not being physical entities that strike down trees.
If according to the context mentioned above, the electron is an invention and not a discovery, then the thingness does not apply to electrons.Drakkith said:Electrons are as real as the squirrels in my back yard, just harder to see and easier to describe with math. And note that math is simply a very refined language, so any problems you have with math being used to describe something you should also have with english, french, or any other language.
And the word 'squirrel' doesn't live in the tree in my yard. But the 'thing' that the word describes does.