Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote:

Dubious wrote:The LHC is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get. Does that mean we shouldn't buy into it?

Anyone who pays taxes will be funding something they think a waste of money, or even immoral. Personally, I don't begrudge the time I have to work to help pay for CERN.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:People who know how to read the list of items, know exactly what they are going to get from a box of chocolates. The trick is to not be Forrest Gump.

There is no list of items for fundamental particles; that's why we have to smash them to bits to see what they are made of.

But this is not what is actually happening.
The model is being smashed to bits, and another model is replacing it, but each bit of chocolate is getting smaller and more tasteless, and useless as we go on.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The model is being smashed to bits, and another model is replacing it, but each bit of chocolate is getting smaller and more tasteless, and useless as we go on.

I have asked before, do you mean the standard model, which is not being smashed to pieces? If not, what model are you referring to and what evidence is smashing it to pieces?

uwot wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The model is being smashed to bits, and another model is replacing it, but each bit of chocolate is getting smaller and more tasteless, and useless as we go on.

I have asked before, do you mean the standard model, which is not being smashed to pieces? If not, what model are you referring to and what evidence is smashing it to pieces?

One flat box of chocolates is about as useful and meaningful as any other.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:One flat box of chocolates is about as useful and meaningful as any other.

Are you talking about the Standard Model? If so: why is it flat? If not: what are you talking about?

My understanding is that the maths predicts the quantum reality very well - near perfect I think. Several models have been developed to interpret the maths. Each model is consistent with the maths, or they wouldn't be models. The relationship between the models (e.g. sum of histories) and the maths and then both to the observations is no more or less problematic than any scientific theory. It's just that the number of consistent models and the fact that our observations cannot serve to settle on a choice has served to make some people nervous a out how well physicists really know what's going on. But that problem has always been present, it just wasn't as easy to see when most scientists agreed on one model.

But I don't see anything being smashed to pieces, just reinterpreted.

uwot wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:One flat box of chocolates is about as useful and meaningful as any other.

Are you talking about the Standard Model? If so: why is it flat? If not: what are you talking about?

I was talking about Whizzo Surprise Chocolates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy6uLfermPU

uwot wrote:

Dubious wrote:The LHC is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get. Does that mean we shouldn't buy into it?

Anyone who pays taxes will be funding something they think a waste of money, or even immoral. Personally, I don't begrudge the time I have to work to help pay for CERN.

I wouldn't begrudge the time either since it probably wouldn't amount to more than a few minutes per year of one's time to pay for it.

If one considers the wastage due to stupidity, ineptitude but most of all to the never ceasing corruption of corporations, institutions, governments, etc. which equals an exponential amount of dollars then the cost for CERN wouldn't amount to a single spit in a forty five gallon drum. It wouldn't even quality as loose change in the pocket books of many of the world's multi-billionaires.

The idea that CERN is taking food out of the mouths' of the worlds starving, as often implied, is both stupid and ignorant beyond belief. If the cost of science is always forced to be in the rear of other more ostensible priorities such as poverty - which never ceased to exist throughout history - we'd still be back to when Dante wrote the "Divine Comedy". Unfortunately, the amounts consumed by the current comedy of corruption is anything but divine. We're the ones paying for it, NOT the billionaires...a Main Street vs. Wall Street scenario in which the plaintive (Main Street) never wins.

If CERN did not exist, it wouldn't change a thing except in the consequence that the potential for future discoveries would greatly diminish. If as a result of science we now need accelerators more powerful than a 1950's CRT then so be it.

Wyman wrote:Each model is consistent with the maths, or they wouldn't be models.

Well yes; a mathematical or metaphysical model is different to the observation. It is possible to tweak Ptolemy and insist that the Earth really is the centre of the universe. The speed at which distant galaxies rotate in such a set up is in spectacular violation of the speed limit set by Special Relativity, so something has to give. Take your pick.

Wyman wrote:But I don't see anything being smashed to pieces, just reinterpreted.

Indeed. For the purposes of science, models work or they don't. Whether they are 'true' is irrelevant.

it's not about models complying to maths, its about models complying with the evidence and the data.
Maths is just the means to see if there is compliance.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:it's not about models complying to maths, its about models complying with the evidence and the data.
Maths is just the means to see if there is compliance.

As often as not, the maths is the model. The 4D 'spacetime' of General Relativity may or may not exist; it doesn't make any difference, the model still works.

uwot wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:it's not about models complying to maths, its about models complying with the evidence and the data.
Maths is just the means to see if there is compliance.

As often as not, the maths is the model. The 4D 'spacetime' of General Relativity may or may not exist; it doesn't make any difference, the model still works.

If you want to see an interesting lecture on the subject, Youtube has a series of five or six lectures given by Feynman when he was relatively young - I believe they were at Columbia or Cornell (if you can't find them and are interested, I can get better details).

One lecture is about the relationship between mathematics and physics. He gives an example of two or three models of gravity (come to think of it, there is also a lecture on gravity, so it may be in that one) that all give the exact same mathematical results - i.e. all or true models of gravity. He then gives some interesting comment on how the different models are psychologically important to the physicist because they can stimulate different ideas, solutions to problems, etc.. So the maths, the models, and the evidence are all important tools in the physicist's bag.

To HC's last point - a model is developed in connection not only with the evidence, but with the mathematics. To be be a model, it must conform to certain stringent mathematical criteria - i.e. its much more than just 'a way to think about it;' it's inextricably connected to the mathematics, so yes, it is substantially about the models complying with the maths.

Wyman wrote: He then gives some interesting comment on how the different models are psychologically important to the physicist because they can stimulate different ideas, solutions to problems, etc.. So the maths, the models, and the evidence are all important tools in the physicist's bag.

Thank you, Wyman. I have watched hours of Feynman and read a lot of his work, he is always good value. I think it probably true that most scientists are "rough and ready realists" to quote Steven Weinberg, and that 'believing' in certain hypothetical entities makes them easier to work with.

uwot wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:it's not about models complying to maths, its about models complying with the evidence and the data.
Maths is just the means to see if there is compliance.

As often as not, the maths is the model. The 4D 'spacetime' of General Relativity may or may not exist; it doesn't make any difference, the model still works.

If that is all it is, then why do we need CERN?

Wyman wrote: To HC's last point - a model is developed in connection not only with the evidence, but with the mathematics. To be be a model, it must conform to certain stringent mathematical criteria - i.e. its much more than just 'a way to think about it;' it's inextricably connected to the mathematics, so yes, it is substantially about the models complying with the maths.

This is the reason for my skepticism, because when you reach this stage is when you are not really doing science, you are really just masturbating.
You are allowing the tail of the maths to wag the dog of evidence.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Wyman wrote: To HC's last point - a model is developed in connection not only with the evidence, but with the mathematics. To be be a model, it must conform to certain stringent mathematical criteria - i.e. its much more than just 'a way to think about it;' it's inextricably connected to the mathematics, so yes, it is substantially about the models complying with the maths.

This is the reason for my skepticism, because when you reach this stage is when you are not really doing science, you are really just masturbating.
You are allowing the tail of the maths to wag the dog of evidence.

I don't understand what you're proposing the alternative to be. The math is based on the evidence and predicts future observation/evidence. The interpretation provides a way to conceptualize it.