December 04, 2003

Clockwork Science. Scientific theories are just subjective mathematical interpretations of the nature or reality. No better proof than both Poincare and Einstein arriving to the same results with differents theories of relativity. Neither of them is wrong. It's just that Einstein's interpretation is far more clearer and easier to work with than Poincare's. Who was maybe just to old to throw away his long held presumptions about nature. A very much older Einstein made a similar mistake when confronted with this other revolutionary theory. (the first link via Arts & Letters Daily)

Of course, the first sentence, "Scientific theories are just subjective mathematical interpretations of the nature or reality", is just an opinion. Don't crucify me.

posted by Zemat 20 years ago
  • Isn't a theory constructed upon data, indeed an interpretation? The article says that PoincarĂ©'s theory still alluded to ether.
  • Damn this kind of steps on the toes of a post that I was going to make. Anyway, here's a fascinating thread on Erik Benson's blog about related ideas. I haven't read all of it yet but this seems quite interesting if you want to get a bit deeper into it. (PDF) Of course, you could always turn to God...or maybe not. PS 'Critical opalescence' is a lovely phrase isn't it?
  • Isn't a theory constructed upon data, indeed an interpretation? Well, yes. That's what I was trying to say. But thanks to the science wars that fact has been almost forgotten or remarked as a postmodernist argument. The article says that Poincare's theory still alluded to ether. And that doesn't make it wrong entirelly. Maybe ether is an useless entity for the sake of relativity. But so is God in the theory of evolution. Yet you can't say it doesn't exists. You could add it to the mix if you want to as the proponents of Intelligent Design do. Although that won't make you look any smarter or wiser. You are just justifying your preconceptions. Just like Poincare did.
  • Yes, but God isn't necessary for evolution. Ether was postulated to be necessary for wave transmission. Experiments to detect it, failed, IIRC, before Poincare's relevant paper. Not to say that Poincare's paper is completely wrong, but it's not simple as tossing a coin and picking up any one of these two theories as a foundation
  • That's why we have Occam's Razor. A similar case is that of Coppernicus' system versus Ptolomei's. The last one required that Earth was the center of the Universe, which is as arbitrary as ether being needed for light transmission. Yet the system worked quite well. It is just that the calculations involved are so complex that if we were to use it today maybe space travel would be far on the future, but it wouldn't be impossible to achieve. In part that's the reason why I believe that we are currently unable to come with anything better than superstrings. Maybe there is an even simpler mathematical interpretation of reality than QM, or maybe it is just impossible to simplify reality anymore. I hope not.
  • That's why we have Occam's Razor. Except Occam's Razor helps to decide between alternate and equally valid explanations. Ether was postulated because it was believed from observation limited to Earth that any information (force waves) needed matter for transmission. Hence the "ether". If Poincare's theory works with ether, then it might have some minor ramifications with regards to ether that might render it invalid in those regards. So Occam's Razor does not apply.
  • From the first link:
    When Poincar
  • I think the essential distinction being made in the article is the distinction between scientific conservatism and revolution, as well as Galison and Kuhn's ideas on what drives scientific process (tools versus ideas, respectively). By the Galisonian view, the two were equal: both Poincare and Einstein had a background in the technology of the time, specifically that which they suggest would lead to relativity as a tool-based advance. That left the Kuhnian view: driven by the willingness to be revolutionary with the ideas (by dispensing with the old standards in physics) Einstein's theory prospered. Sorry to get didactic, but it's about the progressiveness of the idea, not the simplicity (not that I am anti-Occam-- I make liberal use of parsimony). That said (and as the article kind of touches on) I don't think that the Galison and Kuhn models for scientific progress are mutually exclusive, or even overlapping. Taking the Popperian "multi-world" view, if I remember it correctly, the Kuhnian progress is in the realm of the mind and the Galisonian in the realm of our interface with the physical world. Having both play a role in an advance is probably quite possible. theantmustdance: I think your links warranted a separate post (not that I am the authority on this). I like the Wolpert paper, or what I can make of it from reading the abstract. It appears to preemtively strike at Wolfram's "Principle of Computational Equivalence", which is especially entertaining given that a lot of Wolfram's influence has been felt at the SFI (under the asupices of which the Wolpert paper was partially written, according to the acknowledgments). However, I don't think all that many people are impressed with that principle to begin with.
  • jjray is right, theantmustdance. Your links deserve a separate post. Even if your intention is to imply the same ideas than I, which, honestly, I didn't really wished to push too far. This was more of a test post, being my first.
  • Speaking of clocks, I was supposed to break for lunch awhile back, wasn't I?
  • Hmmm... Lunch. I'll stop when BearGuy goes to lunch.