Can " Analogies " , serve in our understanding nature ?

[Phi for All]

This now seems like a rant to encourage wild guesswork over constrained methodology. Personally, I think a lot of wild guesswork goes on, automatically screened by rigorous methodology, and the vast majority is then rejected.

 

Mike, you seem to be romanticizing the vast majority of wrong ideas, like we should spend more time on things with little chance of bearing fruit. Should excitement and fun be allowed to carry you full tilt into so many brick walls? Methodology can help limit the number of lances you break as you tilt against the windmills.

[ajb]

Personally, I think a lot of wild guesswork goes on, automatically screened by rigorous methodology, and the vast majority is then rejected.

My own experiences are that a lot of informed guesswork goes on and many ideas just do not work in the way as originally imagined. Even very senior people conjecture things that are simply wrong. This is the nature of research work, quite independent of the use of analogies!

[geordief]

Pretty off topic but Ada Lovelace took to backing the horses to finance Babbage's machine. With all her skills she still managed to lose her bets and her project.

 

Something must have trumped her method and it turned out badly

 

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-famous-mathematician-ada-lovelace-and-the-horse-named-after-her-1.2460532

 

and

 

http://www.math.wichita.edu/history/women/ada.html

 

"The correspondence of Lady Lovelace and Charles Babbage continued for eighteen years, the last of which were full of scandal, tragedy and failure. The two devised a fool-proof system of betting on the horses while working on mathematical theories of probability. Lady Lovelace, who had always had a passion for horse racing, became badly in debt, forcing her to sell the family"

Edited March 10, 2016 by geordief

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I have had the idea in the past that there were two ways of looking at a situation .One was to analyse it and the other to look at it in the round (woods and trees and all that).

 

I also wondered (in my mental wanderings ) whether "form" had its own primal existence (as opposed , I wondered) to "content".

 

But I came up (in my own mind) with no actual examples to show that this existed in any meaningful way.

 

I don't know if (as another meta -parasitic?-analogy ) this has any bearing on the "analogy" vs "nuts and bolts" question I think MSC has brought up.

 

I think you might be just touching the edge of the issue I am bring to the fore.

Others in life have found my approach to problem solving a little frustrating .

 

This can be in life generally but also in engineering problems that I have been confronted with in the past.

Some of these problems have been anything from ( life threatening ) to (simply does not work ) problems.

 

My first reaction in a disaster , is not to run around like a headless chicken, but to sit down , and have a good think . In the presence of somebody in the disaster , this seems like negligence and lack of care. I usually want to go back to basics , like " is it actually switched on , how do you know , etc etc and work my way up to the problem , rather than dive headlong in. Or I might want to do a test after I have thought which goes to the seat of the problem .

 

I think one could compose a SET OF ANALOGIES , like a set of Algorithms , which would test any potentially , unsure understanding of a matter , and the algorithm or set of analogies , would have no way of not homing in on the solution ( inc scientific and mathematical) . I have had some exposure to Genetic Algorithms and feel there is a good chance that this is a possible way forward for scientific research as well as an understanding of Nature. Because I suspect genetic algorithms are at play here also.

 

Hence my interest in the functioning of Analogies as . With genetic algorithms , one does not have to be precisely on the mark when starting . The genetic algorithm will take you on towards the correct solution , which may be one of many solutions .

 

Mike

Edited March 10, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[geordief]

 

I think one could compose a SET OF ANALOGIES , like a set of Algorithms , which would test any potentially , unsure understanding of a matter , and the algorithm or set of analogies , would have no way of not homing in on the solution ( inc scientific and mathematical) . I have had some exposure to Genetic Algorithms and feel there is a good chance that this is a possible way forward for scientific research as well as an understanding of Nature. Because I suspect genetic algorithms are at play here also.

 

 

Mike

You are not just talking about the way we learn from our life experiences in an undefined and seemingly amorphous way.?

 

You seem perhaps to be trying to shoehorn a method onto this ad hoc way of learning about things.

[Phi for All]

My own experiences are that a lot of informed guesswork goes on and many ideas just do not work in the way as originally imagined. Even very senior people conjecture things that are simply wrong. This is the nature of research work, quite independent of the use of analogies!

 

I would venture that the most informed, knowledgeable people in a subject have the same amount of wild guesses as anybody. The difference is that they're able to use their knowledge and critical thinking to dismiss points that a lesser understanding might spend a lot of time trying to reason out.

 

Here's an analogy about analogies: when someone doesn't quite understand your explanation of a phenomenon, using analogy is like trying to get them from point A to point B by routing them through a system of caves. IF they follow the right route, they'll get to point B, but there are SO MANY more chances they'll stray from the path and get lost. Maybe eaten.

[ajb]

...might spend a lot of time trying to reason out.

Often trying to reason it out will show the idea not to work. It is not always obvious.

[Strange]

Why do I have this romantic notions , of yesteryear. Then bearded, grey haired men , and tightly combed women in lab coats , pouring over fumes , test tubes, electrical coils sparks , breaking ground in the sphere of experimentation . They , with no other driver , than finding things out . Driven by an inner feeling that they personally believed might allow them insight into some inner secret of nature.

 

What happened to those times ? Where is the fun and excitement ?

 

Why do you think things have changed?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Analogies plugged in to a genetic algorithm

 

But the way genetic algorithms work with such matters is to award a multiple of solutions , depending on how near the solution or analogy helps the solution ( say 10 x analogy solution that is near to where you want to be , 3 x if only just recognisable as a useful analogy , and 0 x analogy if useless . Run the algorithm over and over and watch the analogy that works grow into a dominant solution and the useless analogy fade away to zero. Obviously the selective mechanism on analogies must be capable of discerning improvement to the prescribed requirements . ( and awarding multipliers to the favour solutions ) . It's quite an experience to see success grow out of nowhere . You also need to build in a bit of horrific mutation from time to time ( not too much ) just enough to explore new ventures .

 

Mike

 

Ps of course if you plug this in to car design , you go from the model T Ford to today super swish cars . Where the selective algorithm is mainly us the Consumer . Mutations are the crazy designs that never worked , yet occasionally a mutation is loved and we get a new strain of vehicle .

 

If you observe this process , say in the natural rock environment , 400,000,000 years of tides in and out or rivers down and land masses up the solution is where I am sitting now 4:30 pm Thursday 10 th march 2015. This has gone into a stable solution for some 10,000 years , but will get mutated into a new direction when the techtonic plates next take a major collision.

 

 

Mike

Edited March 10, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

How would you actually decide if an analogy is useful or not?

 

I think you are over thinking the use of analogies as tools in science. Analogies cannot actually be used to solve a problem, at best they can help one think about something.

[Strange]

Analogies plugged in to a genetic algorithm

 

But the way genetic algorithms work with such matters is to award a multiple of solutions , depending on how near the solution or analogy helps the solution ( say 10 x analogy solution that is near to where you want to be , 3 x if only just recognisable as a useful analogy , and 0 x analogy if useless . Run the algorithm over and over and watch the analogy that works grow into a dominant solution and the useless analogy fade away to zero. Obviously the selective mechanism on analogies must be capable of discerning improvement to the prescribed requirements . ( and awarding multipliers to the favour solutions )

 

Although genetic algorithms were devised by analogy to the way evolution works (+1 for analogies) the process you describe above has nothing to do with analogies. The solutions have to be calculated (mathematically) and then scored (mathematically) to work out if they should survive the next round, etc. This is just another example of things you can't do by using analogies (you can't program a computer using analogies).

Edited March 10, 2016 by Strange

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

How would you actually decide if an analogy is useful or not?I think you are over thinking the use of analogies as tools in science. Analogies cannot actually be used to solve a problem, at best they can help one think about something.

Well a really bad working analogy would be one you mutate , by in principle turning it upside down , reversing its numerical identifier , or other such crazy , then by circulating it through the computation genetic algorithm , it will either DYE OFF or grow itself numerically over a number of generation , to become a new possible helpful solution to the problem . Then you are into a period of ... Those that are better analogies prosper in number , those that are mediocre analogies just tick along , and those that are naff die off numerically.

 

There are clearly requirements for selection , and a few other criteria, but once you get the selection process sorted . You can sit back and watch it perform , growing into one of a small number of solutions ( one of which you mY have to choose out of the few .

 

Mike

Although genetic algorithms were devised by analogy to the way evolution works (+1 for analogies) the process you describe above has nothing to do with analogies. The solutions have to be calculated (mathematically) and then scored (mathematically) to work out if they should survive the next round, etc. This is just another example of things you can't do by using analogies (you can't program a computer using analogies).

Yes but you can code the analogies into a numerical equivalent ( maths ) and process on a computer that has its own numerical binary coding . Maths here just works like a number crunching tool . And a computer speeds the process up.

 

I have done this exercise with students and bits of paper. Scissors and someone doing the sums on a calculator . It still works . A bit slow . The maths is just a tool .

Edited March 10, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Yes but you can code the analogies into a numerical equivalent ( maths ) and process on a computer that has its own numerical binary coding .

 

The they are no longer analogies.

 

Perhaps you are not using analogies in the usual sense. Perhaps you need to define what you mean by "analogy".

[swansont]

(you can't program a computer using analogies).

 

 

HA! What do you think you use in an ANALOG computer? Can't fool me! It's analogies all the way down!

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

How would you actually decide if an analogy is useful or not?I think you are over thinking the use of analogies as tools in science. Analogies cannot actually be used to solve a problem, at best they can help one think about something.

Yes but it does already work in science . This is how science in university , competes all over the world . Those universities that hypothesise a good idea , may be successful and thrive and prosper , others don't happen to hit on any bright ideas and sink . Then like mutation , someone just accidentally gets hit on the head one night , and gets a bright idea . Other miss deadlines , and so the whole saga goes on . I think you would be hard pushed to say this does not follow some genetic algorithm flow .

 

What possibly is not done at the moment is having a selection system that is run with ideas ( in analogy form ) on a genetic algorithm computer program. Selection is done using other criteria which may well not be engaged into the genetic algorithm method .

 

Mike

[swansont]

Does the model not include ' analogies ' , what quite do you mean , when you say model ?

Hard to fathom you could spend this much time on a science discussion board and not know what one means by a model. As ajb notes, it's a mathematical model. The equations used to describe what happens. There is absolutely nothing that na analogy can convey that is not included in the model. One uses the analogies to explain when the model is too complicated for the audience.

 

 

And I thought science , was an attempt , amongst other things , to understand nature .

What have I been doing all these years , I thought I was getting somewhere near to understanding nature . Or are you going to tell me science is just procedures that work ? I think I had better go out and shoot myself !

 

Mike

Science is about understanding how nature behaves, not any underlying reality. So yes, it's procedures that work. We notice that vibrational modes in a crystal have quantized energy. We call these states phonons. Are they real, physical objects? No. But the model allows us to figure out the behavior. We notice that semiconductors act a certain way. We model the lack of electrons — a hole — because it's easier to do that than model all of the electrons. But that's not a real, physical thing. There is no such thing as a semiconductor hole independent of this context. Much of QM is based on convenient calculational tools.

[Strange]

Yes but it does already work in science . This is how science in university , competes all over the world . Those universities that hypothesise a good idea

 

How do you work out if it is a good idea or not?

 

Analogies might give you a seed, a germ of an idea. But to turn that into a testable hypothesis and maybe into new science you have to rapidly move beyond the analogy. (Until you come to describe the idea to the popular press.)

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Hard to fathom you could spend this much time on a science discussion board and not know what one means by a model. As ajb notes, it's a mathematical model. The equations used to describe what happens. There is absolutely nothing that na analogy can convey that is not included in the model. One uses the analogies to explain when the model is too complicated for the audience.Science is about understanding how nature behaves, not any underlying reality. So yes, it's procedures that work. We notice that vibrational modes in a crystal have quantized energy. We call these states phonons. Are they real, physical objects? No. But the model allows us to figure out the behavior. We notice that semiconductors act a certain way. We model the lack of electrons a hole because it's easier to do that than model all of the electrons. But that's not a real, physical thing. There is no such thing as a semiconductor hole independent of this context. Much of QM is based on convenient calculational tools.

I know there is a lot of maths in much of science . There are some shapes , processes , activities , and a host of other entities which surely can not be described mathematically . Otherwise this forum , would just be a sea of lines of maths , a bit like a computer program . Surely the model can include these pictorial analogies that we have been talking of here . If not in a verbose language . But parts of the model are surely better described pictorially. Diagrammatically, descriptively , verbally . By an eloquent speech , such as presented by Nobel Prize winners , at a university lecture . You are surely not trying to tell me there is maths at the root of every discovery . What about the double helix for DNA . I would like to see that described with all its different cross links by formula.

 

No I can't go with that , that's a dead end . You will limit discovery too much . If science heads blindly down that route , it will hit a dead end with a Bump! No wonder a lot of potential , budding school children scientist run away from Maths and Physics . It's like saying come and play in this playground , it's one solid block of grey concrete . No thanks they say , I will take up Art and Design ,

Geography , History , theatre, languages , Humanities . Etc

 

Mike

Edited March 10, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[StringJunky]

Mike, how many times have you brought this subject up?

[Phi for All]

No I can't go with that , that's a dead end . You will limit discovery too much . If science heads blindly down that route , it will hit a dead end with a Bump! No wonder a lot of potential , budding school children scientist run away from Maths and Physics . It's like saying come and play in this playground , it's one solid block of grey concrete . No thanks they say , I will take up Art and Design ,

Geography , History , theatre, languages , Humanities . Etc

 

Or maybe it's like saying, "Figure out the puzzle, do the work, learn the maths, and you'll find the jigsaw maze beneath the concrete block. Not only that, you'll have better tools for navigating the maze."

 

Not everyone likes cheap shortcuts. Science is many complex disciplines. One should expect some hard work involved.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Or maybe it's like saying, "Figure out the puzzle, do the work, learn the maths, and you'll find the jigsaw maze beneath the concrete block. Not only that, you'll have better tools for navigating the maze."

 

Not everyone likes cheap shortcuts. Science is many complex disciplines. One should expect some hard work involved.

I am not a kill joy . It's just when I remember my school days . Physics was my favourite , and I was good at maths .

But physics was all about the CONCEPTS , behind each new exciting revelation about the world . The experiments illustrated it . And the FORMULAE were there for doing calculations .

 

So Physics was about Concepts which I would link across to these Analogies . With Formulae for calculations .

Maths was really a maze of different Formulae and Proofs that would come in use full when required.

 

I think there has been a tidying up over the many decades , which has given different structure to the whole thing . Renaming things like Models .

 

Oh well , I see the concepts somehow integrated into ( models and Analogies ) and Science , which used to be all the Experiments and Fun has become maths dominated. Good luck to those entering , hope they do not get spooked by all the emphasis on maths .

 

I am sure somewhere there are individuals who are totally fired by the Principles , Experiments , Concepts behind science , and will learn the maths to enable them to do the Formulae .

 

My Analogies have a place in ...Principles , ..Experiments and ..Concepts . ... Maths can be found in Formulae .

 

Mike

 

In my day models , were aeroplanes you built in Balsa wood .

Edited March 10, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

I am not a kill joy . It's just when I remember my school days . Physics was my favourite , and I was good at maths .

But physics was all about the CONCEPTS , behind each new exciting revelation about the world . The experiments illustrated it . And the FORMULAE were there for doing calculations .

 

In reality, I don't think things have changed.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

In reality, I don't think things have changed.

So if I am looking for a target for the " Analogies " it must be the " Concepts " that are supported by experiment , and Math.

 

So I need to find two practical experiments where

 

(a) an Analogy WAS ................used to establish the Concept , with an experiment to support it and a formula to supply the Math Model

 

(B) an Analogy COULD yet be used to establish the Concept , with an experiment to support it and a formula to supply the Math Model

 

Mike

[ajb]

Surely the model can include these pictorial analogies that we have been talking of here .

You can use graphical analogies to help explain some feature of a model.

 

But parts of the model are surely better described pictorially.

You maybe able to use graphical notation an so on...

 

But still by a model we mean a mathematical model.

 

You are surely not trying to tell me there is maths at the root of every discovery .

I am going to say yes. Even the more observational aspect of say zoology require some mathematical methods of data handling and statistics. This may not be very high brow mathematics, but still mathematics is required.

 

What about the double helix for DNA . I would like to see that described with all its different cross links by formula.

DNA was discovered using methods from crystallography. So yes, mathematics was heavily involved in understanding the shape of DNA.

 

 

But physics was all about the CONCEPTS , behind each new exciting revelation about the world . The experiments illustrated it . And the FORMULAE were there for doing calculations .

High school physics is not representative of physics research.

 

Anyway, the concepts you speak of in physics are inherently linked to mathematical models. There is a kind of feedback loop here.

 

You have some loose physical concept based on say experiment. You then form a better understanding of this loose concept within a mathematical model. Then you go back to the start armed with this concept and continue round the loop.

 

This is how concepts like energy and momentum were formed. At first they were loose ideas and now we understand them properly within a model.

 

In short, you cannot cleanly separate concepts from mathematics.

 

 

It may also be useful if you present some examples of these analogies and how they were useful in formulating physical theories.

 

 

There is absolutely nothing that na analogy can convey that is not included in the model. One uses the analogies to explain when the model is too complicated for the audience.

Indeed, and as we see on this forum all the time, there are usually features of an analogy that are not part of the physical theory. We see quite a few bizarre questions based on pushing analogies too far.

 

Analogies can also be useful in mathematics. But again, they are usually pedagogical aides, or ways to help one think. In no way do they replace the hard work.

Edited March 11, 2016 by ajb

[geordief]

It may also be useful if you present some examples of these analogies and how they were useful in formulating physical theories.

 

If it can be shown (by "proving" or just demonstrating a negative) that these examples do not exist -a set of zero- that would be an interesting* result.

 

It would show that analogies only occur after and "never" before the formulation of models or theories

 

You cannot actually prove this but can demonstrate it statistically (if no examples are forthcoming) .

 

* only "interesting" perhaps.

Edited March 11, 2016 by geordief