Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: geordief on 06/09/2018 15:10:30
-
All theories of Physics have been described as models of the processes they attempt to describe.
Is there any sense in which ,when the model is 100% accurate in all circumstances that it effectively merges with "the modelled?
Or is this just airy fairy thinking and the two things are entirely separate and always will be?
-
Are you thinking of a TOE (theory of everything) or of a 'isolated system' there?
-
Are you thinking of a TOE (theory of everything) or of a 'isolated system' there?
I was thinking of both but "realized" that it might only be applicable to a TOE (and even a TOE is not actually considered all encompassing ,is it?)
For a model to merge with what it was modelling might imply that the latter was a form of model in the first place.
It's a bit confusing and perhaps a philosophical rather than a physics question....
-
Can a model merge with the "modeled"?
...perhaps a philosophical rather than a physics question
Yes, when thinking about thought, the model of thought determines the thought which is "thunk"...
-
Can a model merge with the "modeled"?
...perhaps a philosophical rather than a physics question
Yes, when thinking about thought, the model of thought determines the thought which is "thunk"...
Not sure if we are being serious now but yes a thought and a model of a thought might be equivalent to each other..and we have definitely t(r)ipped over into philosophy.</humour>
-
Ok, let me guess :)
Maybe you're thinking of 'cutoffs' ? The way one define a system to ones, and others, liking, As defining atoms restricted to one layer as a 'two dimensional system* ? Or as in using common sense more or less, restricting your mathematics to fit reality, which in this case should be about statistics.
That's one way
A TOE on the other hand :)
That's when you have found the holy grail, and proven it to work.
-
Can a model merge with the "modeled"?
When thinking about ourselves, humans have always modeled themselves on the technology of the time.
- religious people have often viewed the body as a vessel for a spirit
- some thought of the body as a series of pipes carrying around various “humours”
- the architect Vitruvius thought in architectural terms
- others thought of levers
- after Galvani, many thought in electrical terms
- today, often a computing analogy is used for thought
- but today’s leading technology is genomics, and the body is viewed as just an interaction of DNA with its environment.
-
Can a model merge with the "modeled"?
When thinking about ourselves, humans have always modeled themselves on the technology of the time.
- religious people have often viewed the body as a vessel for a spirit
- some thought of the body as a series of pipes carrying around various “humours”
- the architect Vitruvius thought in architectural terms
- others thought of levers
- after Galvani, many thought in electrical terms
- today, often a computing analogy is used for thought
- but today’s leading technology is genomics, and the body is viewed as just an interaction of DNA with its environment.
Is there any rhyme or reason to the progression in models ?
Do the old models remain valid on their own terms or do they serve to remind us of the comparative incompleteness of our view at that time?
If there is a logic to the progression of the models ;is there a point to which they tend? Is it possible that all models merge with each other in some limit and so a TOE (not the TOE as the term is currently used in physics but a more general,overarching use of the term) might conceivably come to the fore?
What on earth might such a TOE look like ? Extremely simple or fiendishly convoluted?
Or is it wrong to suppose that such a TOE could exist and so all the different models we have of different aspects to nature are in a sense independent of one another?