IS ALL THIS TRUE

[surreptitious57]

Mathematical models and physical reality do not always correspond with each other. The ones pertaining to general relativity and

quantum mechanics are famously incompatible although in reality they happily co exist. Einstein himself said that his spacetime

model was an approximation of physical reality not physical reality itself so should not be treated as if it was. Given how every

physicist on the planet knows all of this then why are models of reality given more credence over reality itself. The spacetime

model suggests that the Universe is expanding because of dark energy. But is it more true to say that dark energy does not

actually exist and too much attention is being focused on the model not actual reality. Then why has no one taken heed of

what Einstein said. For the map [ mathematics ] is being confused with the territory [ physics ] and they are not the same

[Strange]

Mathematical models and physical reality do not always correspond with each other.

 

They are models. Their accuracy will vary.

 

Given how every physicist on the planet knows all of this then why are models of reality given more credence over reality itself.

 

I don't think they are. Are they? Models are checked against reality (in the process known as "science") but neither our measurements of reality nor the models are perfect, so there are always error bars. (This fact may be omitted in a lot of popularizations of science, which are all about certainty and mythical "proof".)

 

The spacetime model suggests that the Universe is expanding because of dark energy.

 

Actually, dark energy is only required to explain the apparent accelerating expansion.

 

But is it more true to say that dark energy does not actually exist and too much attention is being focused on the model not actual reality.

 

But the only reason dark energy is hypothesized is because of measurements of reality. It does not come out of models (although it can be easily added to models as an energy term - hence the name).

 

For the map [ mathematics ] is being confused with the territory [ physics ] and they are not the same

 

I think everyone (everyone doing science) knows this.

[ajb]

Given how every physicist on the planet knows all of this then why are models of reality given more credence over reality itself. (?)

In what sense?

 

We all know that mathematical models mathematically model reality and are not the same as reality.

 

With dark energy, dark matter and so on these are initially inferred from the models that we know describe nature well in other situations; in particular general relativity. Thus people look at how to understand gravitation phenomena using general relativity or maybe something close to it. If one needed a completely new theory of gravity then it would be hard to understand why general relativity has worked so well. Any new more complete theory of gravity must reduce to general relativity in certain limits. This requirement will rule out ad-hoc modifications to how we know gravity works.

Edited August 19, 2015 by ajb

[swansont]

Einstein himself said that his spacetimemodel was an approximation of physical reality not physical reality itself so should not be treated as if it was.

 

True of virtually all models in physics. They describe behavior, not reality.

Given how every physicist on the planet knows all of this then why are models of reality given more credence over reality itself.

 

Examples?

[surreptitious57]

Science in general and physics in particular does not investigate reality because that pertains to

philosophy. Specifically ontology. And mathematical models of so called reality are imperfect and

always shall be because all observation is a construct of human consciousness which is subjective

by default. However even allowing for that models can still high light the difference between what we

experience and what is actually real for want of a better word. Ninety nine per cent of an atom is empty

space yet our eyes see solid matter. This is the most powerful illusion of all. So when so called reality is

being investigated it is important not to assume it can be done objectively as that is physically impossible

An approximation is the best that ever be hoped for. For there is no such thing as objectivity in that respect

[ACG52]

This should be in philosophy, not in a science section.

[swansont]

Science in general and physics in particular does not investigate reality because that pertains to

philosophy. Specifically ontology. And mathematical models of so called reality are imperfect and

always shall be because all observation is a construct of human consciousness which is subjective

by default. However even allowing for that models can still high light the difference between what we

experience and what is actually real for want of a better word. Ninety nine per cent of an atom is empty

space yet our eyes see solid matter. This is the most powerful illusion of all. So when so called reality is

being investigated it is important not to assume it can be done objectively as that is physically impossible

An approximation is the best that ever be hoped for. For there is no such thing as objectivity in that respect

 

So, no examples of what you claimed is commonplace?

[DrP]

Yea, I don't go for that either.

[Strange]

Science in general and physics in particular does not investigate reality because that pertains to philosophy.

 

Only if by "reality" you mean that metaphysical realm that is not accessible to human investigation.

 

However, science does investigate the reality that can be observed and measured. In other words, the only reality that can have any effect on us.

 

And mathematical models of so called reality are imperfect and always shall be because all observation is a construct of human consciousness which is subjective by default.

 

Yep. Everybody knows that.

 

You might be better off in this long-running thread on another forum where people have been thrashing this out for years:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?153299-The-last-and-final-argument-about-reality

 

(Hope the mods don't mind a link to another forum, but if it gets rid of this pointless discussion ...)

Edited August 19, 2015 by Strange