Fra
- 4,383
- 724
rewebster said:I was thinking 'another' "what" the initial question (what does this imply?) implies----:
Do you (you all) think any, most, the greatest of discoveries are made through math (equations), or work with particles (experimental work), or?
I don't see why it has to be separated. I like to think two things are "obvious".
a) The first is that real input (observations, experiments) is a major raw material that feeds our increase in knowledge.
b) But we also need to make do theoretical work to refine our questions, and find a systematic and efficient way to interpret the input. I think if this as a general kind of "self observation". Theorizing beeing a kind of self observation, or getting in equilibrium with yourself.
When taken together input, observations and experiments can also be seen as "feedback".
If we consider ourselves as lifeforms, then both points above are necessary for success.
If we are to make a educated guess, as to what the relative frequency of observation of a particular even is, that simply means coming up with a number. And that leads us to math. If there was not math, we would have to invent it, just like mankind did once upon a time. But they did it for a reason, not just for the fun of it - or at least that's what I like to think it was before my time
I don't like to see that there really is a contradiction or problem between theory and experiment, as they are both important. Currently I feel that the theory of physics is such a logical "mess" that I've got a feeling that's where the next step will be taken, but that's just my guess.
/Fredrik