----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:12 AM Subject: Re: Explanation
> Dan Minette wrote: > > Let me understand. You are seriously suggesting that viewing > physics through a computer science lens is as valid as viewing > physics through a physics lens? > > Somewhat off topic, but what do you think of > > Structure and Interpretaion of Classical Mechanics > Gerald Jay Sussman and Jack Wisdom > 2001, MIT Press > ISBN 0-262-019455-4 > > ? > > This book does not involve using `a computer science lens', but as it > says in the Preface > > Classical mechanics is deceptively simple. .... Traditional > mathematical notation contributes to this problem. Symbols have > ambiguous meanings, .... > > [in this book] Computational algorithms are used to communicate > precisely some of the methods used in the analysis of dynamical > phenomena. Expressing the methods of variational mechanics in a > computer language forces them to be unambiguous and > computationally effective. That sounds like a fairly reasonable thing. > To bring the question back to topic, would it be useful to consider > thinking about a photon's actions through a computer science lens as a > *metaphor*? (In this case, the action is specified by a `method' > appropriate to the context, where the actions are either going through > two slits at the same time, like a wave upon the water, or else > behaving like a stone.) I'm not sure about the answer to this because I'm not working as a teacher, and do not have a firm grip on what would help people make the shift in viewpoint that facilitates understanding QM. The accepted understanding among physicists is that physics models what we observe, period. Thus, we have the "shut up and calculate" interpretation favored by those who tend towards realism. The reality of QM is that it is a systematic set of rules and equations that provide a good fit to observation. Computational methods allow us to use things like perturbation theory to obtain predictions that would have been impossible to obtain 100 years ago, even if the algorithms were clear. So, computaiton is very worthwhile there. Using Comp. Sci images to interpret QM is legitimate; but by definition this is doing metaphysics, not physics. So, if someone wanted to do this, then it would be interesting to see the systematic interpreation and compare it to MWI, Copenhaugen, etc. As an aside, by definition, Comp. Sci is based on non-so-hidden underlying variables, which can fully be expressed in another system. Physics hidden variable theories have been falsified. Does that help? Dan M. > Then, could the metaphor eventually be tranformed into physics? If > so, how? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
