Shut Up and Calculate: Exploring Feynman's Ideas on Physics

[yossell]

I have read as much of Bohr's original texts as I could, and I do not agree that his "shut up and calculate" attitude was inadequate, and I am quite sure that those who believe Bohr was uninterested in philosophy and interpretation are misinformed.

I had always thought Bohr to be one of the physicists most interested and most determined to try and understand what quantum mechanics told us about the world, that he introduced new concepts, such as complementarity, to aid him in this and, as such, was very removed from the instrumentalist and 'shut up and calculate' view.

It's true that the term `copenhagen interpretation' is associated both with Bohr and the shut up and calculate view, but I had never seen Bohr himself as properly belonging to this school. Indeed, many of the views that are now associated with the copenhagen interpretation owe more to Dirac and von Nuemann's development of quantum mechanics than to Bohr's work.

 

[humanino]

`Philosophical' has come to be a perjorative term, meaning hopelessly metaphysical, speculative, even mystical. But it's a misrepresentation of the subject matter to make out that philosophy precisely is a matter of getting deeply involved in difficult and possibly intractable interpretative issues.

I realize that I have sometimes used the words "philosophical question" in a sense which can be interpreted as pejorative. It would have been better to specify "only philosophical" in the sense that we are interested in the question but unable to answer it scientifically. My entire point was that those questions which are sometimes answered by "shut up and calculate" have most probably been thought of by the likes of Bohr. So the answer "shut up and calculate" (which is not meant to be aggressive) is an acknowledgment of ignorance, and the reason for this ignorance can only be traced back to technical dead-ends.

Thank you for pointing out the clarification.

 

[Pythagorean]

This is the way I've thought about scientific math all along. The problem, imo, is when scientists claim that they can conceptualize models purely in terms of equations and math. When people say this, it is fundamentally naive, yet such people often purport to be right purely on the basis that they are experts in their field. Put more simply, they think scientific expertise automatically makes them experts in philosophizing and/or other meta-knowledge of what they're doing. Then the question should be how someone can have a PhD (doctor of PHILOSOPHY) in their field without understanding what they are doing beyond the technical level of the nuts and bolts of instrumentalism. This is not to say that people aren't extremely good at what they do or that their expertise is not real expertise. I would just say it is often more technical than scientific.

Nobody can conceptualize models purely in terms of equations and math. Equations are meaningless without qualitative assumptions and definitions attached to them. I think they are in denial about philosophy if they make those claims. In other words, scientists that deny that philosophy enters their mind are in denial.

Great. So why do people resist communicating about them except in maths then?

Well, traditionally, they didn't and there's still many authors like Brian Greene who still attempt it. But that led (leads) to a lot of misconception by people who don't want to study the quantitative aspects. It's the same complaint that you've given only from the other end: to think you can understand these concept in a purely qualitative manner is incorrect.

How can you automatically assume that because someone isn't skilled in mathematics that they can't understand at least some aspect of science? It sounds like what you're arguing is that if someone can't or won't do the math, they should be relegated to studying creationism as their primary explanation of everything in the universe.

It's not an "automatic assumption", it's an observation that's been demonstrated repeatedly here in the philosophy section of physics forums. It's also a matter of having studied the subject for 4+ years in a standardized academic institution. It's not an assumption I was born with, it's one I developed after interactions with laymen (even offline).

But you also have to realize that that 4+ years is also spent developing and learning the qualitative aspect, so even if we ignore the quantitative aspect, you're not going to reach the same level of understanding in even a year of philosophy forum threads.

 

[brainstorm]

`Philosophical' has come to be a perjorative term, meaning hopelessly metaphysical, speculative, even mystical. But it's a misrepresentation of the subject matter to make out that philosophy precisely is a matter of getting deeply involved in difficult and possibly intractable interpretative issues.

Or even just reasoning about the relationships between variables or the implications of a particular model.

 

[brainstorm]

Well, traditionally, they didn't and there's still many authors like Brian Greene who still attempt it. But that led (leads) to a lot of misconception by people who don't want to study the quantitative aspects. It's the same complaint that you've given only from the other end: to think you can understand these concept in a purely qualitative manner is incorrect.

I think this is a good point, and part of the reason it hasn't come out is because of the relative superiority many mathematics-proficient scientists exude when dismissively regarding those who aren't academically trained to the extent they are. There are basic mathematical relationships that are fundamental in concepts like velocity, acceleration, momentum, heat, etc. but it seems like highly trained physicists will dismiss these as mathematics because they are more interested in math that challenges them intellectually. Basic understanding of quantification does, however, allow people with poor math skills understand a lot of science, and I think it would be unfair to presumptively invalidate any thoughts they have because of this. Granted, it always helps to know what people do and don't understand, and be mindful of how this affects their perspective on specific issues, but it just seems unnecessary and wrong to use math-skill as a basis for completely alienating people who are actively interested in your subject matter. It also seems more like chest-beating than constructive discourse to me. What is ultimately the purpose of science except to facilitate progress in culture generally, regardless of people's relative academic level?

 

[Pythagorean]

I think this is a good point, and part of the reason it hasn't come out is because of the relative superiority many mathematics-proficient scientists exude when dismissively regarding those who aren't academically trained to the extent they are.

Yeah, that kind of behavior wouldn't be tolerated among my peer group. What is tolerated is getting frustrated at people who keep insisting and arguing from ignorance. And it's generally a lack of mathematical formalism that is the cause of their ignorance.

Of course, it would be fine if it was just one little thing to clear up, but when the number of misrepresentations is so high, it's likely that the mathematical formalism will clear up all their misconceptions at once instead of me trying to micro-manage every little misconception (and some of them I'll never see because they're hidden assumptions). It's not like they're going to be a math zombie while they're doing the formalism... they're still going to be wondering about their questions and their ideas and THAT'S the part that will help them WHILE doing the formalism. Most newbie physics majors are completely ecstatic about the qualitative/philosophical part. They can't avoid pondering it while doing the mathematical formalism. I know I couldn't.

Also, you might be interested in the demographic of philosopher mathematicians. Hurkyl is an example of one here at physicsforums. Most mathematicians are actually quite philosophical minded. Mathematics augments philosophical thinking, in my opinion, because it's the language that logic uses. So the end point, I guess, is don't be afraid of the math; you can do it, and you will gain a lot from it.

 

[brainstorm]

Yeah, that kind of behavior wouldn't be tolerated among my peer group. What is tolerated is getting frustrated at people who keep insisting and arguing from ignorance. And it's generally a lack of mathematical formalism that is the cause of their ignorance.

Of course, it would be fine if it was just one little thing to clear up, but when the number of misrepresentations is so high, it's likely that the mathematical formalism will clear up all their misconceptions at once instead of me trying to micro-manage every little misconception (and some of them I'll never see because they're hidden assumptions). It's not like they're going to be a math zombie while they're doing the formalism... they're still going to be wondering about their questions and their ideas and THAT'S the part that will help them WHILE doing the formalism. Most newbie physics majors are completely ecstatic about the qualitative/philosophical part. They can't avoid pondering it while doing the mathematical formalism. I know I couldn't.

Also, you might be interested in the demographic of philosopher mathematicians. Hurkyl is an example of one here at physicsforums. Most mathematicians are actually quite philosophical minded. Mathematics augments philosophical thinking, in my opinion, because it's the language that logic uses. So the end point, I guess, is don't be afraid of the math; you can do it, and you will gain a lot from it.

Sorry, but as kind as your words are, they are still basically condescending. They make me wish I had direct experience with training in academic physics, though, because then I could provide more specific arguments about how math can get in the way of valid qualitative reasoning. Unfortunately, it is extremely time and resource consuming to go to all the trouble of learning all the rigorous quantitative exercises that are required for gaining a higher degree only to get ostracized when you actually have the gaul to point out the flaws in the reasoning behind them. Ideally, professional scientists wouldn't get their feathers ruffled or feel offended or threatened when someone exposes the short-comings of one or more methods that are their bread and butter, but as human beings they tend to. Then they insist that if you don't like their method, you better pick another one and stick to it because you can't be a scientist by remaining methodologically critical. Of course critical methodology is more scientific than methodological dogmatism, but it is not what drives grant-funded research that relies on established methods to pursue other goals than critiquing and reforming those methods.

So, yes it would help for qualitatively bright people to learn the math well enough to use or critique it as necessary, but the cost of learning it in order to critique it sufficiently is too high - so many of us prefer to hover in the informal discourse instead of wasting loads of money and effort pursuing a formal education to answer questions that you can pursue qualitatively to satisfy your curiosity and engage in meaningful discourse with others. If credentialed academians wish to withhold contact from the unschooled in hopes of stimulating more patronage of the academic institutions, they may make some more money from some people, but many others will probably just find themselves that much more in the dark ages. It's a shame that scientists can't just maintain a function of public-enlightenment to the extent that it is possible with us ignoramuses (ignorami?).

 

[Pythagorean]

The point wasn't that you should get a degree in mathematics. Just look at the equations yourself, try to understand them, and ask questions in a place like this.

 

[yossell]

Sorry, but as kind as your words are, they are still basically condescending.

Why do you think this? Whether it's maths or philosophy or logic or buddhist meditation that leads to understanding and insight and djana, just because someone sincerely believes and so states that X is the best way of getting there doesn't mean it's condescending. Nobody's saying that method X is closed to you, or that you're too puny to master method X.

 

[GeorgCantor]

It's time to get back on Earth - There is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that math will EVER manage to describe and help us understand reality. As things currently stand in physics, it's more of a question of wishful thinking than solid, forged way to understanding reality.

The mathematical formalism, no matter how well mastered, isn't helping physicists to understand reality better - it's only making them utterly confused about their everyday experience, often times denying the very obvious. Assuming that the universe really exists, this purported 'understanding' is borderline schizophrenic and the real trouble is that it's getting deeper, more acute and psychic. I wouldn't be surprized to see suicide among scientists who take their philosophical ideas and 'understanding' too seriously.

The technical side of the development of the new physics is of tremendous importance but the interpretative issue could well be just a black blind alley.

 

[apeiron]

The mathematical formalism, no matter how well mastered, isn't helping physicists to understand reality better - it's only making them utterly confused about their everyday experience, often times denying the very obvious.

You are missing the point that is being made. Maths is a stronger language for making statements about reality than ordinary English.

Those who are fluent in maths-speak would be doing more than just "shut up and calculate" in fact as they would have a conceptual grounding that allowed them to have meaningful conversations with other maths-speakers.

Now there are perhaps many who may just parrot mathematical sentences. They can repeat what they have heard, without really understanding. They can apply the rules and get a result without really knowing why. This would be much like school kids being made to act out a Shakespeare play - you can read the lines convincingly but there is little meaning.

But maths, properly used, would be meaning-driven.

Should it then be possible to translate accurately from the maths-level understanding back into everyday English? Only roughly at best.

And perhaps more the point Humanino was stressing, should we be able to arrive at the same understandings using only English language? Why should we expect to when English is just not a precise enough tool?

Compare the situation also to music. Being able to speak musical notation fluently is clearly a skill that lifts musical thinking to a higher level of precision and creativity.

The reason for objecting to the slogan "shut up and calculate" is the "shut up" part. It implies that thought stops and mindless, reality-ignoring, symbol manipulation begins. But I have no problem with the demand that at some point we have to shift from a generalised language to a more precise one.

Even in philosophy, this is also true. And in my own area of particular interest, mind science.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Apeiron, it's not about those who know what the new physics means and those physicists who don't. It's about waging an endless, possibly meaningless, argument between confused people of high intellect and social status about what the equations mean for the world we inhabit. Feynman didn't understand what the hell is going on better than you are. It's very deceptive and naive of you to think that mastering math you will develop a better understanding of how everything fits together.

 

[humanino]

It's very deceptive and naive of you to think that mastering math you will develop a better understanding of how everything fits together.

So can you develop ? Do you suggest that not mastering the math could help ?

 

[slider142]

It's about waging an endless, possibly meaningless, argument between confused people of high intellect and social status about what the equations mean for the world we inhabit.

The meaning of equations are, at most, a fun intellectual aside. Philosophically, it is quite impossible to differentiate qualia: that one person's experience is the same as yours, or, taken to an extreme, that anyone other than yourself exists. These "meanings" may give impetus to a new viewpoint that creates a new hypothesis or model, but given that there are a great many models that generate the same equations, there isn't much celebrity given to "meanings" of the equations in anything other than popular science books for entertainment value, or to create an analogy that the reader has a more everyday acquaintance with. Most people do not consciously easily think in terms of pure higher mathematics without falling back on some easier to use visual or physical analogy.

Feynman didn't understand what the hell is going on better than you are.

This is a highly questionable statement, at most. Feynman shows great understanding of the connection between mathematics and physics in his texts, papers, and the collections of personal vignettes that are published as popular science. As a measurement of understanding the physical world, the agreement of a physical prediction with empirical measurement is paramount. Thus, the fact that quantum electrodynamics, which Feynman contributed many new mathematical physics ideas to, is the most successful quantum field theory shows evidence of this understanding.

It's very deceptive and naive of you to think that mastering math you will develop a better understanding of how everything fits together.

There is no content in this statement to show otherwise. Mastering any form of knowledge is beneficial towards understanding the known world, as the known world is the only source of impetus for that knowledge.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's very deceptive and naive of you to think that mastering math you will develop a better understanding of how everything fits together.

This is a warped view. "How everything fits together" isn't even a pursuit of science. That's sounds more like religion to me. I can use an equation to tell you how force affects motion, but anybody who starts talking about "how everything fits together" is immediately suspect to me WHETHER they include equations or not.

 

[GeorgCantor]

This is a highly questionable statement, at most. Feynman shows great understanding of the connection between mathematics and physics in his texts, papers, and the collections of personal vignettes that are published as popular science. As a measurement of understanding the physical world, the agreement of a physical prediction with empirical measurement is paramount. Thus, the fact that quantum electrodynamics, which Feynman contributed many new mathematical physics ideas to, is the most successful quantum field theory shows evidence of this understanding.

That a theory is becoming MORE mathematical doesn't mean that its interpretation(classical, it couldn't be otherwise) has become any more clear. Feynman was notorious for his rejection to get into the interpretation issues by his own "shut up and calculate"(subject of this thread).

Thus, the fact that quantum electrodynamics, which Feynman contributed many new mathematical physics ideas to, is the most successful quantum field theory shows evidence of this understanding.

Did you know why some of the best physicists in the field(foundations) think that a lot of the basic elements of the theory are too contrived? Like the SE or the values of the free parameters in the SM? Or what the widely used virtual particles really are?

There is no content in this statement to show otherwise. Mastering any form of knowledge is beneficial towards understanding the known world, as the known world is the only source of impetus for that knowledge.

You are failing to see the math posed 2 MAJOR problems in 1935 that sparked the EPR argument(the main issue was Einstein's idea of realsim, BUT...):

1. What the Hell is going on(the interpretative issue) and

2. The Nature Of Reality

Now i can safely say that the latter is the main reason for the mathematical 'fence' kept on purpose by physicists to the question - What is qm saying about the world? It's 'designed' to keep philosophical hordes away from the main issue - that of reality itself. It's surprising there are still people here in the Philosophy who have not come to grips with this little fact.

 

[GeorgCantor]

This is a warped view. "How everything fits together" isn't even a pursuit of science.

Really? You are now mandated to speak on behalf of the scientific community?

That's sounds more like religion to me.

The interpretation of the controversial issues are called foundational problems, not religion. Witten is not working for the clergy.

I can use an equation to tell you how force affects motion, but anybody who starts talking about "how everything fits together" is immediately suspect to me WHETHER they include equations or not.

"How everything fits together" is the holy grail of science. How and why this may become (or is becoming) unattainable is another matter.


I have a plane to catch and won't be able to respond for at least another 10 hours.

 

[brainstorm]

This is a warped view. "How everything fits together" isn't even a pursuit of science. That's sounds more like religion to me. I can use an equation to tell you how force affects motion, but anybody who starts talking about "how everything fits together" is immediately suspect to me WHETHER they include equations or not.

Great point - one of many that gets obscured when people with mathematical skill insist that their overall worldview is superior as a result of their mathematical proficiency. They end up thinking that grand perspectives like, "how does everything fit together into a coherent all-encompassing model of the universe" are relevant because a few trans-equations logics appeared to their oracle eyes as generalities and they started believing that this was possible for everything and they could rise to rule over the universe. Sorry to be so blatant, but hopefully anyone who reveres science has had such a guilty megalomanic fantasy - and hopefully gained some perspective on it as well. Science and math are enormously powerful conceptual tools and even when they're not directly generating revolutions in technology, they are usually generating revolutions in consciousness and faith in the potential of technology to radically alter the world "as we know it." I love this transformative power of science, but I also recognize that for every 100 scientists, there are at least 100 radically transformative visions of the future possible, and probably many more.

 

[GeorgCantor]

So can you develop ? Do you suggest that not mastering the math could help ?

No, i have a very deep respect for those who actually take the pain , effort and consequently lose their sleep over these issues. The core of my issue is the implicit(sometimes explicit) assumption that mastering the math will lead to a better understanding of the world.

As far as i can tell, everyone that gets out of a quantum theory or relativity major is very confused. A debb theory is helping some to get back to reality, but at a cost(which borders on religion).

 

[humanino]

his own "shut up and calculate"(subject of this thread).

Feynman never said that. What is your reference ? The proper reference was already provided. As I said earlier, discussions here go nowhere.

Did you know why some of the best physicists in the field(foundations) think that a lot of the basic elements of the theory are too contrived?

As I said, they certainly all have their own ideas, yet manage to convince each other only by calculations.

 

[humanino]

As far as i can tell, everyone that gets out of a quantum theory or relativity major is very confused.

To this I certainly agree. I quote Grothendieck sometimes :

Passer de la mecanique de Newton a celle d’Einstein doit etre pour le mathematicien comme passer du vieux dialecte provencal a l’argot parisien dernier cri, passer a la mecanique quantique j’imagine c’est passer du francais au chinois
Alexandre Grothendieck, Recoltes et Semailles

which loosely translate into
"To go from Newton's mechanics to Einstein's must be for a mathematician like going from provincial dialect to the latest parisian slang, to go to quantum mechanics I imagine must be like going from french to chinese language"

 

[yossell]

The meaning of equations are, at most, a fun intellectual aside.

Mach's relationist interpretation of Newtonian inertial frames, Einstein's (and Poincare's) interpretation of the t' in the Lorentz transformations as genuinely representing time in a frame (as against Lorentz' view that they were just mathematically useful adjuncts), Born's interpretation of the wave function as probability, Minkowski's geometric interpretation of Relativity, QFT's reinterpretation of creation and annhilation operators to avoid Dirac's infinite sea and negative energy.

I think there's still debate about the degree of significance of these interpretations, but conceptual changes about the interpretation of the mathematics has played an active role in inspiring or motivating at least some physicists and at least some physics at least some of the time, and so can be more than just a fun intellectual aside.

 

[Pythagorean]

Really? You are now mandated to speak on behalf of the scientific community?

Don't be so hostile. You can ask for sources without implying arrogance. Would you perhaps trust a poet?

"The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error."
— Bertolt Brecht (Life of Galileo)

If not, read on for scientific sources:

The interpretation of the controversial issues are called foundational problems, not religion. Witten is not working for the clergy.

of course, I didn't mean literally "working for the clergy" I meant this whole concept of whether "everything fits together" is fantastical. Please find me one non-celebrity (i.e. you can't find them on Wikipedia) physicist that really thinks like that and get them to post in this thread. If you're correct, it shouldn't be hard; there's a big pool to choose from here. If you're right, and I'm wrong, they'll put me in my place as the authority on the subject.

Also, if you ask a scientist how to detect a pseudo-science, that's one of the fundamental traits of a pseudoscience: it claims to explain everything:

Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possesses well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.

(citation)
Hines T (1988) Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books.

"How everything fits together" is the holy grail of science. How and why this may become (or is becoming) unattainable is another matter.

Ah, here we are... the "holy grail" of science... a contradictory notion in the first place...

 

[Reasonable1]

Math can be used as a tool of predictability but at times the unknowns may well prove to be it's undoing. As an example let's travel at the speed of light, then the traveler turns on a flashlight pointed in the direction of travel. Do we see the light, a ray, or the reflection on an opposing surface? Math says the light from the flashlight will never be seen by the traveler because we consider the speed of light as diffinitive. But is it or is that speed a point of perspective? Until we travel that fast we will never know if the math is correct and can only infer that it is.

 

[apeiron]

The initial construction of general twistor was due to Penrose in the 70s.

Yes, and I like twistor theory because of its conceptual appeal rather than because I can speak its mathematics. This soliton-style approach to particles as trapped broken symmetries is the kind of theory that seems most natural to me (as it is a systems view).

I accept your point that twistors were long ignored until some concrete mathematics came along to animate them - to do some actual calculating. But also it is amusing that Penrose is far from a "shut up and calculate" type of guy. He is very conceptual in his physics (as he admits himself with all his drawing in the Road to Reality). He is an ardent Platonist. And he is happy to throw himself into fields like mind science where really he has not mastered the basics at all. (But a lot of people did that in the 1990s I guess).

 

[apeiron]

I meant this whole concept of whether "everything fits together" is fantastical.

Why is it fantastical in principle? Is there an argument to support this? And why do people talk about arriving at a theory of everything (ToE)?

Personally I think it is possible that there is only one way reality can self-organise. The alternative is that there are infinitely many and we just happen to exist randomly and anthropically in one of those realities. If those are the choices, I think the simpler one at least deserves a shot.

 

[Pythagorean]

Interesting... You're one of the people I thought wouldn't mistake the ToE for an explanation of everything (the title is deceptive).

We wouldn't, for instance, be able to suddenly explain all mammilian behavior with a ToE. The ToE is a reduced model that explains all four fundamental forces at once.

 

[apeiron]

Interesting... You're one of the people I thought wouldn't mistake the ToE for an explanation of everything (the title is deceptive).

We wouldn't, for instance, be able to suddenly explain all mammilian behavior with a ToE. The ToE is a reduced model that explains all four fundamental forces at once.

Correct. But people in physics do talk about final theories. And when it comes to reality, it does seem reasonable to believe that everything does seem to fit together (that there are not a number of separate causalities or whatever). So a final theory seems conceivable rather than fantastical.

But you may have some no go theorem in mind. Or you might be arguing that we can know that it is all just too complex for puny human minds to grasp. Or that we cannot in principle extrapolate beyond the measureable.

Is there a strong reason to call it fantastical? I don't really think so.

(And on mammalian behaviour, already it seems quite possible to account for that in a physically general way by reference to the second law of thermodynamics - dissipative structure, MEPP, etc.)

 

[brainstorm]

Correct. But people in physics do talk about final theories. And when it comes to reality, it does seem reasonable to believe that everything does seem to fit together (that there are not a number of separate causalities or whatever). So a final theory seems conceivable rather than fantastical.

But you may have some no go theorem in mind. Or you might be arguing that we can know that it is all just too complex for puny human minds to grasp. Or that we cannot in principle extrapolate beyond the measureable.

Is there a strong reason to call it fantastical? I don't really think so.

(And on mammalian behaviour, already it seems quite possible to account for that in a physically general way by reference to the second law of thermodynamics - dissipative structure, MEPP, etc.)

I don't think it's silly to think that certain essential forces drive all physical processes at every scale, or that certain patterns of force interaction are the same for different forces at different scales, etc. What I think is ridiculous is when someone thinks there is an underlying logic to the universe that explains everything from biological development to psychology to physics to culture to political economy. The kinds of principles invented to account for such qualitatively distinct fields are so peculiar to one's philosophical perspective or political worldview that they could never be generalized to the subject material itself in a valid way, as far as I can imagine anyway.

 

[Pythagorean]

But you may have (a) some no go theorem in mind. Or you might be arguing that we can know that it is all just (b) too complex for puny human minds to grasp. Or that (c) we cannot in principle extrapolate beyond the measureable.

(reference letters added)

Little bit of b, little bit of c. But b doesn't quite say what I was thinking. It's a matter of information. You couldn't possibly hope to build a complete model of the universe with only the universe available as a resource, other than just moving every atom and interaction over to a new spot and saying "there, I did it". This is a common theme in modeling: there's no way to generalize and specialize at the same time. You always lose information (and this is just considering relatively simple systems, not the whole universe).

Is there a strong reason to call it fantastical? I don't really think so.

Well, you ask for argument and reason and that's a lot like asking for an argument or reason that god doesn't exist. Of course, I don't have one, I can't prove a negative, etc. It's a matter of the history: scripture and pseudoscience are the two types of information that have always claimed knowledge of everything. This pertains to my reply to George, as part of regime for detecting pseudoscience.

(And on mammalian behaviour, already it seems quite possible to account for that in a physically general way by reference to the second law of thermodynamics - dissipative structure, MEPP, etc.)

Of course, this is the kind of research I'm interested in so I won't argue with your statement here, but it's still not an implication at all that a theory of everything is possible. It's still subject to the same constraints logistically: you'd need all the computers in the world ever made (and more) to completely describe an system in all its complexity. The best we can do is ask a specific question and tweak our model towards that question, losing information about other questions.

My disclaimer remains, of course, that I can't prove a negative. But in the same vein, I think the idea of a supreme being is equally fantastical, though I can't prove it. The more recent emergent view is actually of a non-euclidean stochastic universe, which philosophers have used as evidence both for a lack of god and a lack of causality. Of course, I don't really have an opinion here, just presenting similar views.

Iovane, G. (2004) Stochastic self-similar and fractal universe.
Berera, A. (1994) Stochastic fluctuations and structure formation in the Universe.

 

[apeiron]

Little bit of b, little bit of c. But b doesn't quite say what I was thinking. It's a matter of information. You couldn't possibly hope to build a complete model of the universe with only the universe available as a resource, other than just moving every atom and interaction over to a new spot and saying "there, I did it". This is a common theme in modeling: there's no way to generalize and specialize at the same time. You always lose information (and this is just considering relatively simple systems, not the whole universe).

But that is a simulation. A model does indeed shed information about local particulars so as to arrive at a general truth.

A simulation hopes to recreate reality in all its detail (artificial intelligence, artificial life, artificial realities like the Matrix). A model instead is a general abstract statement that can predict particulars. You plug in some specific measurements and crank out some specific predictions.

Ideally, a model is so reduced that it becomes an equation you can write on a t-shirt. So a fundamental model of the universe would not be its simulation but its most compact prediction-generating algorithm.

Well, you ask for argument and reason and that's a lot like asking for an argument or reason that god doesn't exist. Of course, I don't have one, I can't prove a negative, etc. It's a matter of the history: scripture and pseudoscience are the two types of information that have always claimed knowledge of everything. This pertains to my reply to George, as part of regime for detecting pseudoscience.

But you described the idea as fantastical. I just thought that was rather too strong. And I certainly do not agree that believing “everything fits” is the hallmark of psuedoscience. Rather it is the presumption of science traditionally.

It's still subject to the same constraints logistically: you'd need all the computers in the world ever made (and more) to completely describe an system in all its complexity. The best we can do is ask a specific question and tweak our model towards that question, losing information about other questions.

Again, you are thinking of simulation rather than modelling.

Of course there is going to be a problem of levels of description. A model of everything might be too general to be useful when modelling higher level phenomena. But success would be defined by the way everything does still fit.

My disclaimer remains, of course, that I can't prove a negative. But in the same vein, I think the idea of a supreme being is equally fantastical, though I can't prove it.

Seem quite different cases to me. God explanations are illogical (infinite regress, etc). But for reality to be all one – to have some over-arching causality – seems only logical.

 

[Pythagorean]

@Shut up and Calculate discussion:

Ok, so while writing a reply to apeiron, I had a kind of ah-ha moment. It's consistent with the point I'm trying to make about mathematics being a language. Shut up and Calculate is quite simply an attitude towards learning the language of mathematics. I hope that's well and accepted. I think what people are having trouble accepting is that mathematics actually conveys qualitative concepts that DO have a common language title (i.e. "nullcline"), but DO NOT have a common language definition.

Now, you all KNOW this. You exchange money with services and you can count integers easily. You're taking for granted how mathematics has already ingrained itself into our common language because of it's necessity. You realize the importance of this language on an unconscious level. This is only because you were much more willing to shut up and calculate when you were taught basic mathematics by your parents before you even went to school where you learned even more mathematics, through calculating, and practicing the language, just like you did with the alphabet to practice common language.

(the bold sentence below represents what triggered this thought)

@ apeiron: Well we're getting off-topic. I would participate in a discussion in a new thread. To reply to your post shortly though, I think any time you make predictions with a model that you are simulating (even if you solve a Newtonian equation on paper to figure out the trajectory of a cannonball... it obviously has it's shortcomings. But those shortcomings come from the assumptions of the model, and apply where the assumptions fail.

More complex simulations are done on computers; sometimes people get crazy and add 10 or 12 models into a simulations (wtf, right?) to generalize more, the where the word "simulation" gets its bad name.

Is this consistent with your definitions of simulation and model? Anyway the point is that models are useless without simulation (which predictions are made from, but predictions add a layer of intuition to it).

Anyway, a theory of everything would mean: Find a model for which all of it's assumptions are always true, prove me that negative!

You can write maxwell's equations as one equation... but it's pretty useless without the full development of the four equations, and the full development of what each of those equations means. So really, it's a compression algorithm for humans: a sort of memory recall/filling system. Then you have to add the relativistic equations to it if you want to get to QM.

 

[SixNein]

Generally, physicists don't work on "mathematical problems". They use math in physical problems.

I disagree, respectfully. Physicists create mathematical models that mirror the world, and they work on those models. Those models are indeed matheamtics.

The most simple example I can think of is counting. People learn how to count at a very young age. At first, they start out counting apples or maybe oranges, but eventually, they progress to using mathematical models such as integers.

Do you think in apples or integers?

 

[SixNein]

@Shut up and Calculate discussion:

Ok, so while writing a reply to apeiron, I had a kind of ah-ha moment. It's consistent with the point I'm trying to make about mathematics being a language. Shut up and Calculate is quite simply an attitude towards learning the language of mathematics. I hope that's well and accepted. I think what people are having trouble accepting is that mathematics actually conveys qualitative concepts that DO have a common language title (i.e. "nullcline"), but DO NOT have a common language definition.

Now, you all KNOW this. You exchange money with services and you can count integers easily. You're taking for granted how mathematics has already ingrained itself into our common language because of it's necessity. You realize the importance of this language on an unconscious level. This is only because you were much more willing to shut up and calculate when you were taught basic mathematics by your parents before you even went to school where you learned even more mathematics, through calculating, and practicing the language, just like you did with the alphabet to practice common language.

(the bold sentence below represents what triggered this thought)

@ apeiron: Well we're getting off-topic. I would participate in a discussion in a new thread. To reply to your post shortly though, I think any time you make predictions with a model that you are simulating (even if you solve a Newtonian equation on paper to figure out the trajectory of a cannonball... it obviously has it's shortcomings. But those shortcomings come from the assumptions of the model, and apply where the assumptions fail.

More complex simulations are done on computers; sometimes people get crazy and add 10 or 12 models into a simulations (wtf, right?) to generalize more, the where the word "simulation" gets its bad name.

Is this consistent with your definitions of simulation and model? Anyway the point is that models are useless without simulation (which predictions are made from, but predictions add a layer of intuition to it).

Anyway, a theory of everything would mean: Find a model for which all of it's assumptions are always true, prove me that negative!

You can write maxwell's equations as one equation... but it's pretty useless without the full development of the four equations, and the full development of what each of those equations means. So really, it's a compression algorithm for humans: a sort of memory recall/filling system. Then you have to add the relativistic equations to it if you want to get to QM.

There must be something in the air causing people to think about integers today.

"You're taking for granted how mathematics has already ingrained itself into our common language because of it's necessity"

That was my fundamental point about translating math and physics. And I would go further and say it is ingrained in your mental process. I doubt you count in apples.

 

[Pythagorean]

I disagree, respectfully. Physicists create mathematical models that mirror the world, and they work on those models. Those models are indeed matheamtics.

The most simple example I can think of is counting. People learn how to count at a very young age. At first, they start out counting apples or maybe oranges, but eventually, they progress to using mathematical models such as integers.

Do you think in apples or integers?

In the advanced courses, you don't even USE numbers for most of the work. It's all variables. The variables represent real, physical, measureable things. So yes, I think in "apples" (or whatever physical observable I'm modeling), not integers.

Even in my advanced math classes, the best math teachers (in my opinion, of course) demonstrated the concepts in real systems to give people an intuitive grasp of the information.

Think about it... if I think in integers, I have to remember x (hehe) different symbols. If I think in variables, I remember one symbol. If I think in functions, I remember a shape of the function on a plot, not the numbers at all (the shape scales to many different sizes and shapes for different integers, but ANY behavior of interest has NOTHING to do with the numbers (until you start making predictions with a model to fit to reality, or start engineering a technology in reality to exploit the behavior).

Of course, we eventually HAVE to use numbers in physics, but they're definitely the annoying part of the whole job.

As for a translation... that's basically what math and physics courses are.