[Phys-L] Re: model vs. truth

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>]

At 16:25 -0400 5/31/05, Justin Parke wrote:
> I am not arguing that I have developed an efficient means of finding
> truth, only that it exists, proven by the fact that we desire
> "better" models.
But "better" only means that the output of the model for a given
input mimics the output of the natural system (for the same input)
better. It has nothing to do with whether or not the model
corresponds to any objective reality.

Consider a computer simulation of some phenomenon (say a nuclear
explosion). Given enough computer space and enough time at writing
code, I can "create" a simulation of a nuclear explosion in a
computer that will provide me with outputs that correspond closely
with the instrument readings found in a real nuclear explosion, but
nobody will claim that the computer simulation in any way corresponds
to the real thing, only that the equations I have used to model the
explosion describe accurately what the results of a real explosion
will be. That the actual processes may have to be described by some
other methods cannot be ruled out, as long as both methods give the
same results.

Newton's laws or Maxwell's or Schroedinger's equations only
*describe* what we see, and predict what should happen. They do not
*prescribe* what must happen.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Never ask someone what computer they use. If they use a Mac, they
will tell you. If not, why embarrass them?
                        --Douglas Adams
******************************************************
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l