tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post1109797874636896784..comments2024-03-11T13:47:03.621-05:00Comments on Physics and Physicists: Religious and Scientific Faith in SimplicityZapperZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-32907799966952133272008-11-11T08:36:00.000-06:002008-11-11T08:36:00.000-06:00I think the focus on simplicity in the Page articl...I think the focus on simplicity in the Page article is problematic because he forces too much material into his theme.<BR/><BR/>Simplicity is only one requirement for Scientists to take new work seriously. People can't understand and effectively use a complex structure as readily as they can something that is more complex, so if I introduce a complex idea, it had better have some other very good pragmatic features. The best other thing is perhaps empirical accuracy -- better empirical accuracy certainly allows a more complex model to be accepted. Thus, Ptolemy could model celestial motion better if he introduced epicycles; the SM of Particle Physics is more complex than, but can also better model physics than, say, QED. Simplicity, mathematical beauty, empirical accuracy in a wide regime, engineering applicability, are only four of the many requirements on a proposed new class of models.<BR/><BR/>It's not necessarily that simplicity is "valid" because it "has worked before", it's equally explanatory to say that simplicity is necessary for wide acceptance.<BR/><BR/>Science "produces repeated valid measurements" is problematic, because no experiment is reproduced <B>identically</B>. It's true that experiments can be reproduced in a thermodynamic sense: that the results of two experiments can be <I>close enough</I>, given an agreed choice of statistics of measurements. We agree, however, that the significant statistics are those in which we can see regularities, which leaves begged the question of what to do with statistics, and the much more detailed raw data that is not reproducible, in which we cannot see regularities. If God is in the gaps, then perhaps God is great indeed.<BR/><BR/>What are the thermodynamic data of religious life? Do I have an identical religious experience to that of my neighbor on a pilgrimage? No. Can we agree on <I>some</I> aspects of our experience? Yes. Is religious experience reproducible? No, or Yes, depending on whether we choose descriptions that have something in common.<BR/><BR/>So, I'll venture this: whether faith is the enemy of science depends on what DoFs of society and of individual behavior one thinks this thermodynamic characteristic describes. But I suppose that the enemy is more abstract, a closedness of mind that supposes that when we identify a given thermodynamic variable as having some regularity in our experience, we fail to understand why others cannot see that regularity, and a failure to see other people's choice of thermodynamic variables and how they see or feel their regularity. There is a word for this: empathy. So I suppose that The Enemy of science, as much as that of us all, is the failure of empathy.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes seeing other people's experience requires years of study, as it does when we are students of Science, and the regularities can only be understood if we can think with heart-stopping subtlety, as we do when we engage with extraordinary mathematics. Perhaps a religious sees only imaginary regularities, but perhaps they are as subtle as the high mathematics of Physics, which is simple and beautiful or incomprehensible depending on how one thinks of it and on whether one can think of it at all.<BR/><BR/>Sorry this is so long (though I've written at all because it seemed after a day that your comments crystallized my thoughts). This topic is something I have thought about a lot, but perhaps not to great effect, and probably with no intention of publishing. If you don't want to publish it in your comment stream, that's OK. Your choice. Gratefully, Peter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-63948127363563742182008-11-10T09:25:00.000-06:002008-11-10T09:25:00.000-06:00Thanks for making these points. I started reading ...Thanks for making these points. I started reading that article and got too frustrated to continue reading about half way through.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com