7 ms·

Fascinating. I believe that what you are saying makes sense to you, but you need to understand that it sounds something like: "raccoons aren't mammals because p

Fascinating. I believe that what you are saying makes sense to you, but you need to understand that it sounds something like: "raccoons aren't mammals because purple is wet" to the people you are saying it to.

coldtea 8y ago
See my comment below -- I find what the parent said quite clear, even though his english don't particularly help him make his case.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  I can just say that «correspondence rules must be used to translate from math to real physical world» and be done with that, but it's very different kind of game we are playing here. Some people are smart enough to recognize my moves early. It's game about funding, tenures, fame, elitism, influence, power, etc.
v_lisivka 8y ago
As we know, OpenGL is good at predictions. With OpenGL we can predict physical look of an imaginary object with high precision. It's Ok to say that by applying of non-linear transformation to vertex array we can create visual effect of strong gravitational field, as in "Interstellar". It's not Ok to say that this non-linear transformation of vertex array is nature of gravity. We can use math freely for predictions and to describe laws of nature. But we cannot use math to explain nature.
- gpderetta 8y ago
  Is that you, Markov?
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Whether parent is right about his idea of physics (which I don't know and haven't seen written here), what he says in the above comment boils down to: "Don't confuse the map with the territory". His reasoning seems to be: Math is used as a tool in physics to model reality. But the mere use of math doesn't make such a model real. It could be still way off. And his example is: Similar to how we use math to model physical reality, we also use OpenGL (or 3D graphic APIs in general) to model real world objects (e.g. in movies). Well, just like OpenGL doesn't correspond to some deeper reality (it's just a tool to make models, which could be totally non realistic), same is the case with math. It's just a tool we use to build physical models, it doesn't automatically lend legitimacy to those models (i.e. it's not like "this physics theory uses math so it must be correct representation of reality').
    - snowwrestler 8y ago
      This is all true but it's not actionable. By that I mean, it's philosophically correct but not practically applicable. Yes, mathematical theories are merely a model of actual reality. But a model that produces accurate predictions is useful--even if we know it is not a complete model. Even if we know it's not always accurate, we can model the inaccuracies of the model and constrain how we apply it. NASA knows Newtonian physics is less complete than general relativity, but they still use Newtonian to plot routes through the solar system because it's good enough. So, sure, mathematical physics is not reality. But unless someone has a better tool than mathematical physics for making predictions, merely pointing out that fact is a pointless. Scientists already know it... that's why they do science! Telling a scientist "your theory is not complete yet" is like telling a writer "you haven't written the perfect book yet." Yeah--they know. EDIT to clarify that, while I'm replying to coldtea, my comments are really directed at what v_lisivka is saying in this thread. v_lisivka, you're not wrong, but you're also not adding anything of substance to the conversation. "Physics is not a complete description of reality" is a critique can be dropped into any discussion of physics, which means it does not add any value to a discussion of a specific topic within physics. It's like saying "you can't prove the sun will come up tomorrow" when someone is trying to plan a lunch date.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >This is all true but it's not actionable. By that I mean, it's philosophically correct but not practically applicable. Yes, mathematical theories are merely a model of actual reality. But a model that produces accurate predictions is useful--even if we know it is not a complete model. That's true, but that's not all the above says though. It also says something else that _is_ actionable: don't just trust (or defend) a physics theory because it says it uses math or because it got its math right. It could still be not just non corresponding with "real reality", but even get its predictions wrong.
        Retra 8y ago
        What people trust in or defend wrt/ physics theories isn't really relevant to the science, all it does is setup some social direction -- Which one needs regardless of whether they have a correct theory or not. You've got to fund somebody. So you fund the people with the math that looks good. Objecting to that is basically asking for unrestrained corruption. Crackpots certainly can't be relied upon to identify themselves.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    No. Are you Riemann?

coldtea 8y ago

See my comment below -- I find what the parent said quite clear, even though his english don't particularly help him make his case.

v_lisivka 8y ago
I can just say that «correspondence rules must be used to translate from math to real physical world» and be done with that, but it's very different kind of game we are playing here. Some people are smart enough to recognize my moves early. It's game about funding, tenures, fame, elitism, influence, power, etc.

v_lisivka 8y ago

As we know, OpenGL is good at predictions. With OpenGL we can predict physical look of an imaginary object with high precision. It's Ok to say that by applying of non-linear transformation to vertex array we can create visual effect of strong gravitational field, as in "Interstellar". It's not Ok to say that this non-linear transformation of vertex array is nature of gravity. We can use math freely for predictions and to describe laws of nature. But we cannot use math to explain nature.

gpderetta 8y ago
Is that you, Markov?
- coldtea 8y ago
  Whether parent is right about his idea of physics (which I don't know and haven't seen written here), what he says in the above comment boils down to: "Don't confuse the map with the territory". His reasoning seems to be: Math is used as a tool in physics to model reality. But the mere use of math doesn't make such a model real. It could be still way off. And his example is: Similar to how we use math to model physical reality, we also use OpenGL (or 3D graphic APIs in general) to model real world objects (e.g. in movies). Well, just like OpenGL doesn't correspond to some deeper reality (it's just a tool to make models, which could be totally non realistic), same is the case with math. It's just a tool we use to build physical models, it doesn't automatically lend legitimacy to those models (i.e. it's not like "this physics theory uses math so it must be correct representation of reality').
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    This is all true but it's not actionable. By that I mean, it's philosophically correct but not practically applicable. Yes, mathematical theories are merely a model of actual reality. But a model that produces accurate predictions is useful--even if we know it is not a complete model. Even if we know it's not always accurate, we can model the inaccuracies of the model and constrain how we apply it. NASA knows Newtonian physics is less complete than general relativity, but they still use Newtonian to plot routes through the solar system because it's good enough. So, sure, mathematical physics is not reality. But unless someone has a better tool than mathematical physics for making predictions, merely pointing out that fact is a pointless. Scientists already know it... that's why they do science! Telling a scientist "your theory is not complete yet" is like telling a writer "you haven't written the perfect book yet." Yeah--they know. EDIT to clarify that, while I'm replying to coldtea, my comments are really directed at what v_lisivka is saying in this thread. v_lisivka, you're not wrong, but you're also not adding anything of substance to the conversation. "Physics is not a complete description of reality" is a critique can be dropped into any discussion of physics, which means it does not add any value to a discussion of a specific topic within physics. It's like saying "you can't prove the sun will come up tomorrow" when someone is trying to plan a lunch date.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >This is all true but it's not actionable. By that I mean, it's philosophically correct but not practically applicable. Yes, mathematical theories are merely a model of actual reality. But a model that produces accurate predictions is useful--even if we know it is not a complete model. That's true, but that's not all the above says though. It also says something else that _is_ actionable: don't just trust (or defend) a physics theory because it says it uses math or because it got its math right. It could still be not just non corresponding with "real reality", but even get its predictions wrong.
      - Retra 8y ago
        What people trust in or defend wrt/ physics theories isn't really relevant to the science, all it does is setup some social direction -- Which one needs regardless of whether they have a correct theory or not. You've got to fund somebody. So you fund the people with the math that looks good. Objecting to that is basically asking for unrestrained corruption. Crackpots certainly can't be relied upon to identify themselves.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  No. Are you Riemann?