Ron Johnson wrote:
> He discovered ("take the cover off of") the mathematical model that
> rules the universe.
The mathematical model does not rule the universe. The model is an
attempt to approximate the observed behavior of the universe in a way
that allows us to predict future events. Why the universe behaves as
it does is completely unknown to us.
If you have a black box containing an electrical circuit with a set of
inputs and outputs, you can study the behavior of the box and come up
with a number of hypothetical circuits that would behave similarly to
the box, but you cannot prove that the circuit in the box is identical
with any of your hypotheses. All you are demonstrating is functional
equivalence for the set of tests you have run, within the measurement
limits of the testing equipment you're using. Other tests (or even the
same tests at some other time) or better measurements might require you
to discard or modify your hypotheses. This is a simple analogy for the
entire process of science. We devise theoretical models that correspond
to the phenomena we observe, but we can never know what's really inside
the black box.
My favorite quote from Stephen Hawking is one where he was contrasting
his view of quantum theory with that of Roger Penrose in a Scientific
American article several years ago. He wrote (this may not be word
perfect, as I no longer have the article), "Roger doesn't like quantum
theory because he doesn't believe that a cat can be dead and alive at
the same time. He thinks that can't correspond to reality. But I don't
know _anything_ about reality. All I care about is that a theory can be
used to successfully predict the results of experiments. By that
standard, quantum theory has been very successful."
Craig
Attachment:
pgpHGX_AC4s7S.pgp
Description: PGP signature