6 ms·

No, please refrain from calling this a 'physics' model. It's just playing with words.

ta1234567890 7y ago
Interesting, what's the definition of "physics model"? Also, can anything in written form not be called playing with words?
- drdeca 7y ago
  There is a difference between “playing with words” and “just playing with words”. If something is said to be “just”/only “playing with words”, this suggests that there is “no meat to it”, that it doesn’t actually describe something coherent and actionable. Things can, of course, include both real and actionable content, and also wordplay.
- krapp 7y ago
  > Interesting, what's the definition of "physics model"? A model which is based upon physics, which itself is (according to Wikipedia,) "the natural science that studies matter, its motion and behavior through space and time," and which, being a natural science, ascribes attributes and behavior to the material world and its processes through experimentation and mathematical inference. >Also, can anything in written form not be called playing with words? What "playing with words" means in the context of your former comment is that what you presented was a fantasy which ignored any of the observed and known principles (read: actual definitions) of the terms being used, and the science which led to them. Alternative theories for dark matter are all well and good (MOND[0] is popular) but your alternative only makes sense if one neither knows, nor cares, about actual physics. We already know that planets are not clumps of electricity and light surrounded by a magnetic vacuum which is the medium in which information travels. That's not physics, it's word-salad, it doesn't even make sense. That said, I still upvoted your comment because ridiculous as it is, fringe theories for dark matter aren't uncommon and they can and should serve as a basis for discussion, not just be quashed. It's understandable that people are uncomfortable or unsatisfied by dark matter and dark energy - particularly since the "dark" in those terms refers to the nature of the phenomena being unknown, and they seem counter-intuitive and humans (and perhaps CS/engineering types in particular) want the universe to not just be intuitive, but elegant and simple. Unfortunately, the more we study it, the less sense it makes. To reference XKCD[1], the universe isn't built in Lisp, it's hacked together in Perl. But that doesn't mean we should just throw out what we know and start again on first principles until we have a model that makes sense to us first, and describes reality second. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics [1]https://xkcd.com/224/ https://xkcd.com/224/
  - ta1234567890 7y ago
    That was a very fair and insightful comment. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond intelligently and respectfully. Now, regarding physical models, you are assuming there is a universal truth or reality that is the same for everyone. And that is just a belief. I don't think you can force anyone to believe something. You are also free to believe in whatever you want to believe.
    - krapp 7y ago
      >Now, regarding physical models, you are assuming there is a universal truth or reality that is the same for everyone. And that is just a belief. There appear to be universal constants which can be experimentally verified and whose attributes and behaviors remain consistent. In other words, the universe appears to have properties which can be known. There is no evidence that the fundamental nature or properties of reality change based on the beliefs of the individual observer. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that universal physical reality does exist, and that data gathered through repeated observation and measurement more accurately describes that reality than speculation without such evidence. >I don't think you can force anyone to believe something. Wasn't trying to. Just pointing out that the universe isn't arbitrary, and not all conjectures are equally valid. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese if you like, just don't expect to be taken seriously, because there is a vast amount of evidence that it isn't.
    - sls 7y ago
      you say: > regarding physical models, you are assuming there is a universal truth or reality that is the same for everyone which is basically an axiom one must adopt to engage in science. E.g., here's the formulation found in the Wikipedia article "Philosophy of Science"[1]: > that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers So if one wishes to engage in an inquiry that doesn't hold this axiom, it's of course a perfectly fine thing to do, but it's best for all concerned not to call it science or scientific. Many issues and lines of inquiry that are important to people aren't amenable to scientific inquiry, but it does nothing but harm to dissimulate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Naturalism's_axiomatic_assumptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Naturali...
- hos234 7y ago
  Freeman Dyson's essay "Why is Maxwells Theory so hard to understand" is worth checking out. Words are usually not the best medium to talk about abstract stuff.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  True, which is why we use maths.
- Sniffnoy 7y ago
  A model has to be precise enough that you can actually draw conclusions from it. Precise: As in, precise enough to be formulated in mathematics. Conslusions: Actual, externally-visible conclusions, not just "conclusions" about how the terms you yourself have defined relate.

Interesting, what's the definition of "physics model"? Also, can anything in written form not be called playing with words?

drdeca 7y ago
There is a difference between “playing with words” and “just playing with words”. If something is said to be “just”/only “playing with words”, this suggests that there is “no meat to it”, that it doesn’t actually describe something coherent and actionable. Things can, of course, include both real and actionable content, and also wordplay.
krapp 7y ago
> Interesting, what's the definition of "physics model"? A model which is based upon physics, which itself is (according to Wikipedia,) "the natural science that studies matter, its motion and behavior through space and time," and which, being a natural science, ascribes attributes and behavior to the material world and its processes through experimentation and mathematical inference. >Also, can anything in written form not be called playing with words? What "playing with words" means in the context of your former comment is that what you presented was a fantasy which ignored any of the observed and known principles (read: actual definitions) of the terms being used, and the science which led to them. Alternative theories for dark matter are all well and good (MOND[0] is popular) but your alternative only makes sense if one neither knows, nor cares, about actual physics. We already know that planets are not clumps of electricity and light surrounded by a magnetic vacuum which is the medium in which information travels. That's not physics, it's word-salad, it doesn't even make sense. That said, I still upvoted your comment because ridiculous as it is, fringe theories for dark matter aren't uncommon and they can and should serve as a basis for discussion, not just be quashed. It's understandable that people are uncomfortable or unsatisfied by dark matter and dark energy - particularly since the "dark" in those terms refers to the nature of the phenomena being unknown, and they seem counter-intuitive and humans (and perhaps CS/engineering types in particular) want the universe to not just be intuitive, but elegant and simple. Unfortunately, the more we study it, the less sense it makes. To reference XKCD[1], the universe isn't built in Lisp, it's hacked together in Perl. But that doesn't mean we should just throw out what we know and start again on first principles until we have a model that makes sense to us first, and describes reality second. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics [1]https://xkcd.com/224/ https://xkcd.com/224/
- ta1234567890 7y ago
  That was a very fair and insightful comment. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond intelligently and respectfully. Now, regarding physical models, you are assuming there is a universal truth or reality that is the same for everyone. And that is just a belief. I don't think you can force anyone to believe something. You are also free to believe in whatever you want to believe.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >Now, regarding physical models, you are assuming there is a universal truth or reality that is the same for everyone. And that is just a belief. There appear to be universal constants which can be experimentally verified and whose attributes and behaviors remain consistent. In other words, the universe appears to have properties which can be known. There is no evidence that the fundamental nature or properties of reality change based on the beliefs of the individual observer. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that universal physical reality does exist, and that data gathered through repeated observation and measurement more accurately describes that reality than speculation without such evidence. >I don't think you can force anyone to believe something. Wasn't trying to. Just pointing out that the universe isn't arbitrary, and not all conjectures are equally valid. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese if you like, just don't expect to be taken seriously, because there is a vast amount of evidence that it isn't.
  - sls 7y ago
    you say: > regarding physical models, you are assuming there is a universal truth or reality that is the same for everyone which is basically an axiom one must adopt to engage in science. E.g., here's the formulation found in the Wikipedia article "Philosophy of Science"[1]: > that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers So if one wishes to engage in an inquiry that doesn't hold this axiom, it's of course a perfectly fine thing to do, but it's best for all concerned not to call it science or scientific. Many issues and lines of inquiry that are important to people aren't amenable to scientific inquiry, but it does nothing but harm to dissimulate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Naturalism's_axiomatic_assumptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Naturali...
hos234 7y ago
Freeman Dyson's essay "Why is Maxwells Theory so hard to understand" is worth checking out. Words are usually not the best medium to talk about abstract stuff.
Koshkin 7y ago
True, which is why we use maths.
Sniffnoy 7y ago
A model has to be precise enough that you can actually draw conclusions from it. Precise: As in, precise enough to be formulated in mathematics. Conslusions: Actual, externally-visible conclusions, not just "conclusions" about how the terms you yourself have defined relate.