Limits to Conceptualisation

[frgregory]

One question I rarely see discussed concerns the limits our brains impose on our ability to conceptualise "extreme" physical realities, (micro and macro).

 

Particles as "points," or "strings," quanta as "packets" ... all these assume an analogy from the less extreme physical realms of dots, elastic bands and shopping trolleys.

 

The possible limitations might arise within our own brains. Is there any research to suggest that there are indeed limitations on our brains' power to model complex structures and might machines do any better?

[foodchain]

One question I rarely see discussed concerns the limits our brains impose on our ability to conceptualise "extreme" physical realities, (micro and macro).

 

Particles as "points," or "strings," quanta as "packets" ... all these assume an analogy from the less extreme physical realms of dots, elastic bands and shopping trolleys.

 

The possible limitations might arise within our own brains. Is there any research to suggest that there are indeed limitations on our brains' power to model complex structures and might machines do any better?

 

Interesting question, do you mean by brains as in everyone’s brain or a populations net effort by chance? As far as machines go, well, they would evolve from our brains really through design, past them becoming conscious and self design from our influence, I don’t know if machines could do much better past maybe doing it faster. I cant say of course what the future would be for such ultimately, but on that note the machines would have to be able to escape our domain of intellect without are efforts of course or else we would already be doing such without the machines I think.

 

As far as naming conventions go, well some of its arbitrary, if I can a photon a zorg, I don’t think it really changes the photon as long as we rely purely on empirical observations of such. As for how much our brains as humans have an impact on empirical observations, well, thought does not seem to stop gravity if a person decides not to believe in it, and on the other end of the spectrum I think keeping science open and social or not ill willed with walls and assumptions in thought or bias will keep fallacy from taking control. More or less I think all that people can do really is stick to empirical observations, the rest is well either a untested hypothesis or philosophy really.

[frgregory]

I would go along with a lot of that 'foodchain' but I don't mean "naming" as such (which is arbitrary). Although giving quarks colour is simply a fun way of talking, in other cases it does indeed matter for the model can be integral to an account of those empirical observations.

 

So, "strings" are said to "vibrate." Now I know that particles don't actually "spin" so, I suppose, superstrings might not actually vibrate (if they exist ... I am inclined to the Smolin view). What is the point, however, in letting very rough approximations to mundane reality at our scale determine in part how we model "extreme" realities if the match itself is partially fortuitous rather than rationally constructed. Might we better placed if we actually looked at the conceptualisations on grounds of fitness, factoring in the limitations in human mental processing?

 

Machines might one day exceed us in this regard of course, but then we would simply not be even capable of understanding any outcomes .... which, admittedly, is rather self defeating .... (except for the machines, worryingly)

[pioneer]

There are two basic parts to the mind, one is conscious and the other is unconscious. The limitations of conceptualization is connected to being able to filter out the affects of the unconscious mind. For example, if I like apples and not oranges, I can rationalize this any way I like. The lack of unbiased choice is due to some type of unconscious affect. When we reach the limits of knowledge, these affects become stronger and subtle since the brain is trying to instinctively help us out to fill in the blanks.

 

For example, if someone drove you home and dropped you in front of your house one will typically remain fully rational. This is solid science. If the same person dropped you off on a dark road in the woods, one's sense of reason now gets much more influenced by the imagination; lions and tiger and bears, Oh My! This the frontiers of science were the solid science gets thin you have to work more in the dark. The shadow in the woods now looks like a person, or animal, etc., One can go with that theory from the unconscious. As long as you stay roadside it can/did exist. We can't run experiements for everything, so some shadows will remain.

 

If your friend made it a daily habit to drop you off on different dark roads in the woods each night, eventually you begin to get used to this. You begin to see that shadows can play tricks on you. The loud noise is not a big monster but a tiny owl making a loud screech. This makes the limits of conceptualization extend even further. As you develop night vision and experience working in the dark the limits of conceptualization stretch.

[BenTheMan]

I think our ability to understand what the world is doing physically is intimately tied to the extent to which math describes nature. If math fails to describe nature, we can no longer understand it.

[frgregory]

Perhaps OUR math. (I find it difficult as a Brit not to talk of maths!) Math is not of course static and new branches of mathematics have had to be invented to serve scientific development. If you mean the scope of ALL possible maths, then yes, that would be the limit. The limit of which I speak though is the possible inability of our brains to do some sort of math which might be necessary for scientific theorising. Of course, we are not static either. There are prodigies and there is the trajectory of evolution.

[foodchain]

I think our ability to understand what the world is doing physically is intimately tied to the extent to which math describes nature. If math fails to describe nature, we can no longer understand it.

 

I agree to an extent. One is that math is a form of logic created for all intensive purposes of history by humans. My other issue is that sure, you can do math with a facet of reality and it will allow you to understand an outcome, or even predict it. My issue is with the system of logic itself. When you do an equation that relates to a predictive outcome, that’s all that is stated. It does not by the system of logic itself, as in this case math, really put forward the reality of what occurred though. Such as in does a quantity of matter really times itself by another quantify of matter, or energy? The math will give accurate prediction using the times or multiplicative function of logic in math, but is that really in nature or reality what occurred?

 

So to the extent of which I disagree with math as the ultimate way really for understanding is that, its a human made system of logic, which means its open to change by such, as in photons exist, but I don’t see the sun producing square roots, or square roots do not make up the asteroid belt literally, and second is its description can be superficial. So there is a limit to it currently for what it can do really. Lastly I don’t like how so many people simply imply untested math as truth to something in reality, humanity already knows from experience that nature does not work like that. I feel that math merely encapsulates in a rather empty shell reality and is devoid of an true material meaning. Looking at biometry compared to the other vastness of biological science I feel this is made concrete to any observer. I also know that empirical knowledge in biology is made and understood without relying purely on math for empirical substance.

[BenTheMan]

If you mean the scope of ALL possible maths, then yes, that would be the limit.

 

I thought that that was clear from the context...

[Royston]

Perhaps OUR math.

 

What do you mean 'our' math, what other math is there.

 

(I find it difficult as a Brit not to talk of maths!)

 

Why ? Since when has it been difficult to not talk of maths, because you're British ?

 

Math is not of course static and new branches of mathematics have had to be invented to serve scientific development. If you mean the scope of ALL possible maths, then yes, that would be the limit. The limit of which I speak though is the possible inability of our brains to do some sort of math which might be necessary for scientific theorising.

 

What's your point, maths is just a tool...last time I checked, a tool becomes more advanced due to refinement, and is shaped by the discoveries found using that tool.

 

Of course, we are not static either. There are prodigies and there is the trajectory of evolution.

 

What are you talking about ?

[Severian]

I think the maths reference is a bit of a red herring. If a theory is makes predictions then it must be describable by maths, and must be conceptualizable. If it cannot be described by maths, then it is not predictive and is not science.

 

In other words, the only non-conceptualizable phenomena would be non-predictive phenomena, where you could never set about making predictions not even on a statistical level with 100% knowledge of the initial state.

[YT2095]

in my Opinion, I think it`s largely down to Language as the limiting factor, for instance the Eskimos have over a dozen words for Snow, we only have a few.

so we may indeed need to invent New words to Describe what we observe, in fact that is already the case, Science adds new words to the dictionary each year.

 

it`s all based on Building Blocks (the Words), Unexplainable, Indescribable, "Beyond words" etc... don`t really help matters much

 

this isn`t the entire picture, just part of my Opinion.

[Severian]

I think that is true. I would even go so far as to say that maths is just a language for expressing logic in an efficient way. When we find some new logical system that we can't describe with current maths, we make up some new words/symbols/axioms to describe it mathematically.

[YT2095]

again, IMO, Maths like Music or Pictograms.... are Languages, if they can be used to communicate and convey a concept it`s Valid.

 

and I believe only by Expanding our "Vocabulary" can we get past whatever conceptual "Block" may be there.

 

it`s alright Me understand something, but perfectly Useless in science if I can`t tell someone else, it`s as bad as Cassandra Syndrome

[frgregory]

Snail

 

What do you mean 'our' math, what other math is there.

 

I mean the math of which we know, not our version

 

Why ? Since when has it been difficult to not talk of maths, because you're British ?

 

Oh dear. UK English: Maths. US English: Math.

 

What's your point, maths is just a tool...last time I checked, a tool becomes more advanced due to refinement, and is shaped by the discoveries found using that tool.

 

My question wasn't about maths ... it rather concerned possible limits in human mental processing when it comes to modelling obscure physical realities.

 

Of course, we are not static either. There are prodigies and there is the trajectory of evolution.

 

What are you talking about ?

 

I mean that those limits might be transcended if our brains continue to evolve in an appropriate direction.

[pioneer]

Conceptualizing helps give the proper direction to the math. Picture this, say it is 200 years ago and we have little modern understanding. Someone comes up with the idea that gravity is due to the repulsion of matter by space. We can set up the math, sort of an inverse of Newtonian gravity and create a new set of math equations that will work. The math is like a faithful horse that will go where the concepts lead it. It will go up the hill or down, it doesn't matter. At the conceptual level, one needs to make a plan that is logically consistent, so we are not leading the faithful math horse into a swamp. The math can make the swamp functional and actually look like a fresh water lake.

 

It we go back to the inverse gravity equations. These may add up at the level of the math and provide verifiable proof in actually tests. It has past all the science criteria so it becomes carved in stone. Now using this as a foundation we begin to extrapolate. The moon orbits the earth because the earth must have a large space inside that is repelling the moon. If we can do the math that is consistent with this assumption, that is now true since the math adds up and can be proven with a test. That is why conceptualizing is important. It is rough draft to make sure all the ducks are in a row before we prove a crooked line is straight with the math. The inverse gravity theory did not occur because conceptualists would have look wider and saw this is inconsistent before letting the math horse go on its journey.

[frgregory]

Yes, pioneer; that's how conceptualising works and why it is vital. However, my question concerns putative limits to conceptualising based on our mental processing and whether or not machines that design machines might exceed those limits or indeed whether evolution (assisted or otherwise) could eventually transcend them.