4 ms·

What do you mean by "the scientific process"? This is a subject that is up for debate and is philosophical in nature. If you cannot get a universally agreed upo

What do you mean by "the scientific process"? This is a subject that is up for debate and is philosophical in nature. If you cannot get a universally agreed upon definition for this then "science" can never converge on a 100% accurate model. You then go into comparing a non-physical entity as an example of a physical system. Universal Turing Machines are an idealised entity. It cannot match, in any way, any physical system in a 100% accurate way. So saying that you cannot simulate an idealised model of computation as the means of saying that that we have a 100% accurate model that cannot be simulated is logically circular. It does not make the distinction you are trying to make. Simulations are models and all models are idealised. So simulations cannot never be 100% accurate as no model can be 100% accurate of physical systems. As far as "reality is mathematical" and empiricism, you are the one claiming that empiricism is mathematical in nature when it is a philosophical viewpoint and you are claiming that the OP is claiming empiricism. The problem you are forgetting is that every theory and every model are idealised representations of the universe about us. Whether or not we are able to successfully use mathematics to describe all that we find is another matter entirely. When scientists, both experimental or theoretical, say that their theories or models on any the subject are correct, they are misleading themselves and everyone else. Every model and theory is inaccurate. All make assumptions that ignore the reality that they are investigating. I have said this before, just because a theory or model gives some predictive ability to what one may see, it doesn't mean that that the theory or model is correct. Too many people, including the scientists that promote a theory or model, get so caught up in being right that they forget that the theory and model is only something that we can use to try and understand what is going on about us in the universe. I used to have no problems with biological evolutionary theory and models. However, after reviewing the results of experiments in the field, it became obvious that something was really wrong with the model (models) being used. The results did not support what was being promoted. I used to have no problems with various things like the "big bang" or "black holes" or "neutron stars" or even general relativity, until I started to look at what was being seen in actual experiments and the problems with the underlying assumptions to the theories being used. Anomalous results that were being found and ignored. The ad hominem attacks of those who did not ascribe to the "consensus" theories and models really lead me to investigate the basic assumptions being used. All that I see is a growing problem in science where it is no longer about developing an understanding of our universe but "follow the party line" or be anathema and be excommunicated. To those who know their history, the Inquisition is alive and well today. Science is a tool we can use to gain some understanding. Philosophy is a tool we can use to gain understanding. We should be capable of putting these tools in our toolbox and using them accordingly. But to those who only have a hammer, then everything is a nail.

naasking 8y ago
> If you cannot get a universally agreed upon definition for this then "science" can never converge on a 100% accurate model. Any process which would converge on a 100% accurate model would suffice. A universally agreed upon definition is not necessary. Some such processes will simply converge more quickly than others. > So saying that you cannot simulate an idealised model of computation as the means of saying that that we have a 100% accurate model that cannot be simulated is logically circular. I don't think youve understood the example if this is your summary of my argument. My argument proves that even given 100% accurate model, simulability is a completely separate property. Accuracy is necessary but not sufficient. Accuracy is also achievable, as was mathematically proven in Solomonoff Induction. > So simulations cannot never be 100% accurate as no model can be 100% accurate of physical systems. This is either incorrect or wildly speculative. Either way, these two claims are not entangled, ie. simulations can be inaccurate for reasons other than the accuracy of the model. > As far as "reality is mathematical" and empiricism, you are the one claiming that empiricism is mathematical in nature when it is a philosophical viewpoint and you are claiming that the OP is claiming empiricism No I'm not. I suggest you reread it again, and keep in mind that since we don't know the fundamental structure of reality, the OP's claim that the conjecture is empirically false is a universal claim that must be true regardless of the structure. His claim is false in a mathematical universe as I explained, ergo his claim is simply false. See, avoiding silly arguments like this is why people need philosophy. > I have said this before, just because a theory or model gives some predictive ability to what one may see, it doesn't mean that that the theory or model is correct No one has made that claim.
- oldandtired 8y ago
  The problem is that we do not have any processes converging on a 100% accurate model for any field of scientific research. Every model currently in existence has problems and these problems are becoming thornier. Simulation is a model and as such is not a "completely separate property". You raise the "mathematically proven" Solomonoff induction process. Yet you do not state the limitations to such a process and the simple fact that it is about computability and for all intents and purposes completely impractical for any study of reality. There are many simulations that are not computable. You have a belief that a model is possible to be 100% accurate. You will need to demonstrate that belief. Every model and theory makes some assumption and simplifications about the subject matter for which it is applicable. You make an assumption that mathematics is capable of describing the universe accurately. Yet mathematics is an idealised system with its own assumptions as to what is true. This is no way means that the universe itself is mathematical, nor does it mean that mathematics can describe the universe. I have no problem with models and theories being useful but all fail in some area of applicability. The fundamental error you are making is the assumption that humans can understand. We can gain some understanding but we do not understand. There is a big difference here. I'll say it again, science (even mathematics) is not about finding the "truth" but is about creating workable models and theories that we can use. If you want "truth" then study philosophy and religion. Every experiment performed in the search for a more workable model and theory always gives rise to more questions. Many times, those questions can be "swept under the carpet" because those questions lead to question the firmly held belief in the model and theory being investigated. You cannot declare that the OP's claim is simply false since he talking about the universe and not a "mathematical universe". Your claim that the universe is a mathematical universe is supposition on your part. When you claim that a model or theory is capable of being 100% accurate then you are making the claim that the model or theory is correct. It is interesting that you recognise that we don't know the fundamental structure of reality, yet you make the claim that it is mathematical. Please take a step back and also recognise that mathematics is a useful tool to help develop useful models and theories. Don't give authority to mathematics and the theories and models that come out of it. Keep in mind that they are useful "tools" only. The discussion is about physics and philosophy and the interaction between the two. Those who have claimed that physics doesn't need philosophy have forgotten or have never looked at the specific philosophical underpinnings involved in the current crop of models and theories in use across every field of scientific study and investigation. Those philosophical viewpoints have dictated where the various models and theories have gone. Have a look at your own fundamental belief system and ask yourself "How would I look at the universe around me if my basic belief was different?" Understand that your philosophical and religious viewpoint colours how you interpret the results of experiments, colours what experiments you will perceive and how you will develop your theories and models. If you are an Atheist, you will see things in a variety of ways. If you are a Buddhist, you will see things differently. This will happen whether you are a Hindu, a Daoist, a Moslem, a Christian, a Wiccan, or any of the various religious or philosophical systems.

naasking 8y ago

> If you cannot get a universally agreed upon definition for this then "science" can never converge on a 100% accurate model. Any process which would converge on a 100% accurate model would suffice. A universally agreed upon definition is not necessary. Some such processes will simply converge more quickly than others. > So saying that you cannot simulate an idealised model of computation as the means of saying that that we have a 100% accurate model that cannot be simulated is logically circular. I don't think youve understood the example if this is your summary of my argument. My argument proves that even given 100% accurate model, simulability is a completely separate property. Accuracy is necessary but not sufficient. Accuracy is also achievable, as was mathematically proven in Solomonoff Induction. > So simulations cannot never be 100% accurate as no model can be 100% accurate of physical systems. This is either incorrect or wildly speculative. Either way, these two claims are not entangled, ie. simulations can be inaccurate for reasons other than the accuracy of the model. > As far as "reality is mathematical" and empiricism, you are the one claiming that empiricism is mathematical in nature when it is a philosophical viewpoint and you are claiming that the OP is claiming empiricism No I'm not. I suggest you reread it again, and keep in mind that since we don't know the fundamental structure of reality, the OP's claim that the conjecture is empirically false is a universal claim that must be true regardless of the structure. His claim is false in a mathematical universe as I explained, ergo his claim is simply false. See, avoiding silly arguments like this is why people need philosophy. > I have said this before, just because a theory or model gives some predictive ability to what one may see, it doesn't mean that that the theory or model is correct No one has made that claim.

oldandtired 8y ago
The problem is that we do not have any processes converging on a 100% accurate model for any field of scientific research. Every model currently in existence has problems and these problems are becoming thornier. Simulation is a model and as such is not a "completely separate property". You raise the "mathematically proven" Solomonoff induction process. Yet you do not state the limitations to such a process and the simple fact that it is about computability and for all intents and purposes completely impractical for any study of reality. There are many simulations that are not computable. You have a belief that a model is possible to be 100% accurate. You will need to demonstrate that belief. Every model and theory makes some assumption and simplifications about the subject matter for which it is applicable. You make an assumption that mathematics is capable of describing the universe accurately. Yet mathematics is an idealised system with its own assumptions as to what is true. This is no way means that the universe itself is mathematical, nor does it mean that mathematics can describe the universe. I have no problem with models and theories being useful but all fail in some area of applicability. The fundamental error you are making is the assumption that humans can understand. We can gain some understanding but we do not understand. There is a big difference here. I'll say it again, science (even mathematics) is not about finding the "truth" but is about creating workable models and theories that we can use. If you want "truth" then study philosophy and religion. Every experiment performed in the search for a more workable model and theory always gives rise to more questions. Many times, those questions can be "swept under the carpet" because those questions lead to question the firmly held belief in the model and theory being investigated. You cannot declare that the OP's claim is simply false since he talking about the universe and not a "mathematical universe". Your claim that the universe is a mathematical universe is supposition on your part. When you claim that a model or theory is capable of being 100% accurate then you are making the claim that the model or theory is correct. It is interesting that you recognise that we don't know the fundamental structure of reality, yet you make the claim that it is mathematical. Please take a step back and also recognise that mathematics is a useful tool to help develop useful models and theories. Don't give authority to mathematics and the theories and models that come out of it. Keep in mind that they are useful "tools" only. The discussion is about physics and philosophy and the interaction between the two. Those who have claimed that physics doesn't need philosophy have forgotten or have never looked at the specific philosophical underpinnings involved in the current crop of models and theories in use across every field of scientific study and investigation. Those philosophical viewpoints have dictated where the various models and theories have gone. Have a look at your own fundamental belief system and ask yourself "How would I look at the universe around me if my basic belief was different?" Understand that your philosophical and religious viewpoint colours how you interpret the results of experiments, colours what experiments you will perceive and how you will develop your theories and models. If you are an Atheist, you will see things in a variety of ways. If you are a Buddhist, you will see things differently. This will happen whether you are a Hindu, a Daoist, a Moslem, a Christian, a Wiccan, or any of the various religious or philosophical systems.