Studying Negative Computer Models


> > Why this experiment is significant, is that they were able to create stable universes missing an entire force. Now, could life REALLY exist there? That's a much harder question. Radioactive elements are required for life here-->our geology is just one of many factors assisting us. But these universes created the known elements of life, so the potential is at least there.
> 
> In part that is my point. Even if there was a glimmer of hope that life might exist in a universe missing one of our forces, what does that prove? we still have lots to learn about this universe. How does working from the negative help?-The only thing I can tell you that would probably make any sense is that it provides stress-tests. It gives us entirely new perspectives on the laws of physics and why they're important. The weak force is important to allow heavy elements to form. However, it is NOT important to the functioning of chemistry. Those models kept the same rules for chemistry that we have now, and nothing abnormal appeared. (Or didn't appear.)-If we tweak some values, what kinds of anomalous things appear? Can we observe them in our own universe? are those parameters the only things involved? -As for the utility of studying negative models... I guess if you don't agree with the idea of studying anomalies and outliers I can't really make a convincing case for you. For me, I won't rest with an incomplete picture. And I don't think our Universe provides us with that.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Post reply

3211 views

As for the utility of studying negative models... I guess if you don't agree with the idea of studying anomalies and outliers I can't really make a convincing case for you. For me, I won't rest with an incomplete picture. And I don't think our Universe provides us with that.-I don't think that the problem with this methodology is in the fact that you are studying anomalies and outliers. The problem lies in the fact that you are not studying real data, you are studying an artificially created model of what you think the real data is. This can lead to a bias based on the garbage in garbage out principle. -The other danger of studying mathematical models, as any game designer could tell you, is that you can create whatever you want with math. It is not strictly limited to reality. This is even more true when it comes to using statistical analysis of the data sets. As I am fond of saying, statistically, a polar bear is the safest pet.-
There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.." ~ Robert Heinlein

Post reply

3221 views

Tony,-I'm assuming you weren't following the part of the thread this popped up in.-If this is not true, ignore the rest of this post.-The mathematics used are the mathematics used to predict the Big Bang and have been confirmed by thw WMAP data. So the math isn't a flight of fancy. David and I oppose the anthropic principle for different reasons. My opposition is that it restricts research to studying only a universe like ours, David's is that it ignores critical questions that suggest a creator. -But the overriding point is that if there is a flaw in studying aberrant universes because of the math, then that math is flawed for ALL models, not just those special cases under consideration. You can't discount a negative study but still accept the math that created your positive result. Those negative cases should provide information that can improve your model, and in the case of the standard model, might reconcile classical & quantum physics without using fairy theories (like strings.).

Post reply

3188 views

I really do understand the concept, and I am not saying that there is no benefit to be gained from it. I am simply saying that creating a fairy tale world in order to test the real world carries with it some inherent logical dangers because we have incomplete knowledge of our own system. So straight off the bat, you have garbage going into the system, the only possible result is that you will have garbage coming out of the system as well. It may be small and mixed in with the good, but it will still be there.

Post reply

3173 views

I really do understand the concept, and I am not saying that there is no benefit to be gained from it. I am simply saying that creating a fairy tale world in order to test the real world carries with it some inherent logical dangers because we have incomplete knowledge of our own system. So straight off the bat, you have garbage going into the system, the only possible result is that you will have garbage coming out of the system as well. It may be small and mixed in with the good, but it will still be there.-But since it all uses the same math, all you need to do is update and hit "play." These are computers, after all!

Post reply

3192 views

With my math, I can create worlds in which magic works, orcs exists, and dogs talk, that does not make it real. Fun, sure, but not real. The math itself is not changed, only the context in which it is applied. I apply mine with the explicit intention of creating something that does not exist in reality. Scientific models do so with the explicit intention of modeling reality, changing which ever variables they wish to test. The same constraints that apply to my math apply to theirs, which in the game design world is known as imperfect knowledge. i.e. No player knows every variable and thus is unable to 'solve' the game. Even with perfect knowledge, such as we have in chess, it is extremely difficult to solve the game, even with computers. How much more complicated is the real world than a chessboard? How many more variables and relative probabilities are there to try and solve? The models may be a valuable tool, but in the end they are a flawed tool, made by flawed creatures, created from a system of which we have imperfect knowledge(math), and are about a system which we have imperfect knowledge.

Post reply

3140 views

With my math, I can create worlds in which magic works, orcs exists, and dogs talk, that does not make it real. Fun, sure, but not real. The math itself is not changed, only the context in which it is applied. I apply mine with the explicit intention of creating something that does not exist in reality. Scientific models do so with the explicit intention of modeling reality, changing which ever variables they wish to test. The same constraints that apply to my math apply to theirs, which in the game design world is known as imperfect knowledge. i.e. No player knows every variable and thus is unable to 'solve' the game. Even with perfect knowledge, such as we have in chess, it is extremely difficult to solve the game, even with computers. How much more complicated is the real world than a chessboard? How many more variables and relative probabilities are there to try and solve? The models may be a valuable tool, but in the end they are a flawed tool, made by flawed creatures, created from a system of which we have imperfect knowledge(math), and are about a system which we have imperfect knowledge.-So at what point does Tony accept math and/or computer models applied to the world?-do you challenge the ability of models such as e = mc^2 or F = ma, or more complex operations such as Fourier transformations?-How about gas laws or quantum models?

Post reply

3220 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Studying Negative Computer Models (Humans)