5 ms·

> ... chemistry is a leaky abstraction ... Well I second you on that. Even stronger: All of (theoretical) science is a leaky abstraction. When an area is new,

by fizixer 10y ago

> ... chemistry is a leaky abstraction ... Well I second you on that. Even stronger: All of (theoretical) science is a leaky abstraction. When an area is new, people are doing the spherical-cow-approximation willy nilly. After it gets established, corner cases start to surface. Incidentally, theoretical physicists are the masters of creating spherical-cow-approximations and leaky-abstractions. They're always going for the next big unexplored territory. E.g., once QM got established as a theory, they moved on to high-energy, while there is about 1000x more work to be done picking up the pieces of QM in the areas of solid-state-physics and molecular-chemistry. (largely speaking that is; not everyone is like that).

sriku 10y ago
A meta spherical cow?
jp3141 10y ago
relevant xkcd https://www.xkcd.com/435/ https://www.xkcd.com/435/
- Noseshine 10y ago
  Math is a tool. It's orthogonal and used by all, not hierarchical above (or below) all of them.. http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html > The natural sciences investigate the physical universe but mathematics does not, > so mathematics is not really a natural science. This leaves open the subtler > question of whether mathematics is essentially similar in method to the natural > sciences in spite of the difference in subject matter. I do not think it is. I'm not even including that famous Einstein quote about math. Example: When you are doing math in economics you are not doing something that is even more foundational than physics.
  - rpwverheij 10y ago
    what if the nature of the physical universe has no other reason to be as it is other than mathematical consequences of harmonies, resonances, balances, etc? In other words: if all that exists follows mathematical law, doesnt that make math part of the existential?
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      > if all that exists follows mathematical law As a thought experiment, try the opposite direction: Math mirrors reality, not reality mirrors math. I don't see electrons solving quantum equations - equations describe an electron. The cannonball follows a trajectory that we can describe using math - but it doesn't do math. Sure, you can say that it does, implicitly, but IMHO that's stretching it a bit, I don't see the value in such a metaphor. From a certain level such questions become completely arbitrary and useless: Remember, it's your brain that interprets everything and you can just say whatever you want when there are no consequences.
      - ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
        nah, you are interpreting math in too narrow a sense. It's really an exploration of all possible things that can be. Which is what the universe is really, it's just gotten a lot further down a particular path.
      - runT1ME 10y ago
        > As a thought experiment, try the opposite direction: Math mirrors reality, not reality mirrors math. If this was true, it would severely limit the usefulness of math. We'd see our predictability break down much sooner than we do actually. Read up on it here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/
        Noseshine 10y ago
        Why do you interpret my post as an absolute? http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07 http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07 I said - and I have no idea why I have to paraphrase my one sentence - to try a thought experiment, to see what happens when you reverse the direction. Not to mention that you didn't really say anything? I have no idea what your point even is.
    - m_mueller 10y ago
      We don't have to make this thought experiment since we already know that it isn't the case - reality is a subset of what's mathematically possible. Finding that subset is what physics is concerned with.
  - aethertron 10y ago
    Alternatively: mathematics can be seen as the science of structure. http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/structmath.html http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/structmath.html
adrianN 10y ago
That sounds like a pretty solid method for making progress. First outline something with spherical cows and refine the theory as data that doesn't quite fit keeps accumulating.

by fizixer 10y ago

sriku 10y ago

A meta spherical cow?

jp3141 10y ago

relevant xkcd https://www.xkcd.com/435/ https://www.xkcd.com/435/

Noseshine 10y ago
Math is a tool. It's orthogonal and used by all, not hierarchical above (or below) all of them.. http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html > The natural sciences investigate the physical universe but mathematics does not, > so mathematics is not really a natural science. This leaves open the subtler > question of whether mathematics is essentially similar in method to the natural > sciences in spite of the difference in subject matter. I do not think it is. I'm not even including that famous Einstein quote about math. Example: When you are doing math in economics you are not doing something that is even more foundational than physics.
- rpwverheij 10y ago
  what if the nature of the physical universe has no other reason to be as it is other than mathematical consequences of harmonies, resonances, balances, etc? In other words: if all that exists follows mathematical law, doesnt that make math part of the existential?
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    > if all that exists follows mathematical law As a thought experiment, try the opposite direction: Math mirrors reality, not reality mirrors math. I don't see electrons solving quantum equations - equations describe an electron. The cannonball follows a trajectory that we can describe using math - but it doesn't do math. Sure, you can say that it does, implicitly, but IMHO that's stretching it a bit, I don't see the value in such a metaphor. From a certain level such questions become completely arbitrary and useless: Remember, it's your brain that interprets everything and you can just say whatever you want when there are no consequences.
    - ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
      nah, you are interpreting math in too narrow a sense. It's really an exploration of all possible things that can be. Which is what the universe is really, it's just gotten a lot further down a particular path.
    - runT1ME 10y ago
      > As a thought experiment, try the opposite direction: Math mirrors reality, not reality mirrors math. If this was true, it would severely limit the usefulness of math. We'd see our predictability break down much sooner than we do actually. Read up on it here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/
      - Noseshine 10y ago
        Why do you interpret my post as an absolute? http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07 http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07 I said - and I have no idea why I have to paraphrase my one sentence - to try a thought experiment, to see what happens when you reverse the direction. Not to mention that you didn't really say anything? I have no idea what your point even is.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    We don't have to make this thought experiment since we already know that it isn't the case - reality is a subset of what's mathematically possible. Finding that subset is what physics is concerned with.
- aethertron 10y ago
  Alternatively: mathematics can be seen as the science of structure. http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/structmath.html http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/structmath.html

adrianN 10y ago

That sounds like a pretty solid method for making progress. First outline something with spherical cows and refine the theory as data that doesn't quite fit keeps accumulating.