4 ms·

Western reductionism/Laplacian determism was falsified several times by counterexamples like quantum superposition, Cantor diagonalization etc. The System Iden

Western reductionism/Laplacian determism was falsified several times by counterexamples like quantum superposition, Cantor diagonalization etc. The System Identification Problem has also been shown to be equivalent to the halting problem. https://philarchive.org/rec/DIEEOT-2 https://philarchive.org/rec/DIEEOT-2 The common joke about spherical cows in physics also points to the predictive, descriptive nature of the field. The equivalence of various QM interpretations also points to the scientific realist views as being incorrect. Rice's theorm, Gödel, Wada property etc... also demonstrate the problems of confusing the map with the territory. There are further topics like indecomposable continua that arise frequently and naturally in nonpathological dynamical systems. Especially with time delayed ODEs, Hamilton systems etc? Are you arguing that Hamilton systems aren't 'physics'? The value of western reductionism is finding 'effective procedures' but teaching it as being reality is more about didactic convention and convenience. 'Hard science' is a term for study the universe through theories, hypotheses and experiments. It is still about making predictions that match observations. This it is descriptive vs prescriptive.

mjburgess 2y ago
You're assuming an idealization is a fictionalization, rather than a way of getting at an essential property (ie., a stable, real, causal feature) of a system. Treating a cow as spherical is a means of selecting is real property of volume, as it is causally efficacious in say, a gravitational field -- whilst discarding is accidental-random variations in volume across all cows. That we can treat cows as spherical, and obtain relevant dynamics should show that this early 20th C. instrumentalism is false. By idealization one selects the actual properties of objects for explanatory modelling -- one does not invent them or otherwise construct a merely instrumental fiction. Cows have volume, whose variation is accidental across cows, their volume expressed as a sphere selects better for their essential volume. Very few, if any, theories of physics are predictive in almost any situation without this idealization -- because it is impossible to describe, eg., the volume of any actual cow. An actual cow has uneven density, shape, etc. and would require a significant amount of data to describe -- nearly all of which does not bare on the role its mass plays in a gravitational field. What idealization does is create hypothetical scenarios which imagination all irrelevant causes are controlled, and all accidental properties are uniform (/ of a known distribution) -- so that the model can focus on Explaining the target Essential property in question. These hypotheticals are not inventions, they are means of targeting what is being explained. If you look at the predictive accuracy of scientific models, as applied in any actual scenario, they are fall apart -- almost nothing at all can be predicted, because all actual situations comprise innumerable accidental features which cannot be modelled.
whatshisface 2y ago
Determinism is falsified by quantum measurement, not superposition (which is deterministic), and even then only pragmatically, rather than philosophically.
- nyrikki 2y ago
  Quantum superposition is indecomposable, measurement is an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation. You can view wave function collapse as invalidating your priors and it still works without observation. The special case of quantum superposition being indecomposable function, or one you can't Curry if you prefer. QM is actually lucky that there are only two exit basins, n≥3 is where you get the stronger form of indeterminism. Classic Chaos is deterministic with inf precision, but riddled basins require absolute precision which is stronger, and the wada property is still not deterministic with absolute precision. Example of the Newton fractal and the wada property. https://gauss.math.yale.edu/fractals/MandelSet/RealNewton/NMWP/NMWP.html https://gauss.math.yale.edu/fractals/MandelSet/RealNewton/NM... Binary black holes and the Wada property https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.10741 https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.10741 Think of it as going north from Mexico, crossing the border and finding yourself in Canada. You can also approach it from KAM and porous sets etc... if that works better for you.

mjburgess 2y ago

You're assuming an idealization is a fictionalization, rather than a way of getting at an essential property (ie., a stable, real, causal feature) of a system. Treating a cow as spherical is a means of selecting is real property of volume, as it is causally efficacious in say, a gravitational field -- whilst discarding is accidental-random variations in volume across all cows. That we can treat cows as spherical, and obtain relevant dynamics should show that this early 20th C. instrumentalism is false. By idealization one selects the actual properties of objects for explanatory modelling -- one does not invent them or otherwise construct a merely instrumental fiction. Cows have volume, whose variation is accidental across cows, their volume expressed as a sphere selects better for their essential volume. Very few, if any, theories of physics are predictive in almost any situation without this idealization -- because it is impossible to describe, eg., the volume of any actual cow. An actual cow has uneven density, shape, etc. and would require a significant amount of data to describe -- nearly all of which does not bare on the role its mass plays in a gravitational field. What idealization does is create hypothetical scenarios which imagination all irrelevant causes are controlled, and all accidental properties are uniform (/ of a known distribution) -- so that the model can focus on Explaining the target Essential property in question. These hypotheticals are not inventions, they are means of targeting what is being explained. If you look at the predictive accuracy of scientific models, as applied in any actual scenario, they are fall apart -- almost nothing at all can be predicted, because all actual situations comprise innumerable accidental features which cannot be modelled.

whatshisface 2y ago

Determinism is falsified by quantum measurement, not superposition (which is deterministic), and even then only pragmatically, rather than philosophically.

nyrikki 2y ago
Quantum superposition is indecomposable, measurement is an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation. You can view wave function collapse as invalidating your priors and it still works without observation. The special case of quantum superposition being indecomposable function, or one you can't Curry if you prefer. QM is actually lucky that there are only two exit basins, n≥3 is where you get the stronger form of indeterminism. Classic Chaos is deterministic with inf precision, but riddled basins require absolute precision which is stronger, and the wada property is still not deterministic with absolute precision. Example of the Newton fractal and the wada property. https://gauss.math.yale.edu/fractals/MandelSet/RealNewton/NMWP/NMWP.html https://gauss.math.yale.edu/fractals/MandelSet/RealNewton/NM... Binary black holes and the Wada property https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.10741 https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.10741 Think of it as going north from Mexico, crossing the border and finding yourself in Canada. You can also approach it from KAM and porous sets etc... if that works better for you.