Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
That's coming from a non-physicist perspective, perhaps a behavioralist. However, most physicists do indeed think that their art, physics, creates models of reality.
|
Perhaps its more the perspective of an anthropologist. I am looking at the physical artifacts and activities of scientists, as well as the way the world and people's lives change, and asking, “What is taking place here?” There are models, metaphors, analogies, and representations, here, but is the best description of the products of science is that it produces copies of the world it studies? It is not clear in such a case how being in possession of a replica of something makes one knowledgeable about the original. Owning a cheap knockoff of the original Rubik's cube wouldn't help one in solving the original cube.
Quote:
|
A better analogy, then, would be that a computer program designed to figure out what stroke is needed to sink a putt would indeed be modeling an "absolute" putt, meaning a real putt. Others might say this is one of the primary purposes of science.
|
The computer does produce representations, of course. Perhaps it displays a 3D animation showing the golfer how to position his body and swing. But in the bigger picture, the computer is embedded in the same physical context the golfer is. The golfer improves his stroke by responding appropriately to feedback. The computer becomes part of the overall loop involving the golfer and the golf course. The computer functions as part of the feedback loop. Overall, then, the computer's function is not to model, but to increase control sensitivity to particular features in the environment.
I think that the LHC and the like perform the same function for physicists. The LHC puts them in command and control of the environment in ways they could not be otherwise.