Template:M intro design Nomological machine: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Template:M intro design Nomological machine (view source)

Revision as of 16:31, 26 February 2024

135 bytes added , 26 February

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,469

edits

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 The nomological machine might be something like this: a perfectly elastic one kilogramme ball, in a frictionless vacuum, to which we apply a force of one Newton, which therefore accelerates at 1 metre per second squared.
-The conditions in which this machine operates — zero friction, perfect elasticity, Euclidean spacetime geometry, a non-inertial frame of reference — never prevail “in the wild”. In life, there is always friction, interference and inexactitude. We can never  be sure of our measurements — was it ''exactly'' a Newton? — whether the force was applied perfectly flush, nor whether the speedo was correctly calibrated. We we expect the prediction to be “near enough” but don’t expect accuracy to the micrometre.  It is too hard to calculate, and we don’t have the data in any case.
+The conditions in which this machine operates — zero friction, perfect elasticity, Euclidean [[Space-time|spacetime]], a non-inertial frame of reference, no other interfering causal effects — never prevail “in the wild”. In practice, there is ''always'' friction, interference, [[Unknowns|unknown]]<nowiki/>s and inexactitude. We can never be sure of our measurements — was it ''exactly'' a Newton? Was the force was applied perfectly flush? Was the speedo was correctly calibrated? Being pragmatic folk, we we expect the prediction to be “near enough” but don’t expect accuracy to the micrometre.  It is too hard to calculate, and we don’t have the data in any case.
-Newton’s neat formula, with all these unrealistic conditions, is a ''nomological machine''. If the observed universe does not seem to quite come up to brief, we blame shortcomings in our observations and the lack of conditions required to satisfy the model. The nomological machine is not properly represented.
+Newton’s neat formula, with all these unrealistic conditions, is a ''nomological machine''. If the observed universe does not quite come up to brief, we put its shortcomings down to observational errors and the lack of conditions required to satisfy the model. The nomological machine is not properly represented.
-It is said that, when calculating trajectories during the Apollo programme, NASA scientists used Newtonian mechanics rather than Einstein’s more accurate calculations, because the relativistic maths was too hard to do on a slide rule, the effects would have been swamped by the margin for error in data observations, and it was safer and easier to make mid-course corrections in any case.<ref>This would please [[Gerd Gigerenzer]].</ref>
+Most of the time, this does not matter. It is said that, when calculating Apollo module trajectories, NASA scientists used Newton rather than Einstein, because the relativistic maths was too hard, the effects would have been swamped by the margin for error in data observations, and it was safer and easier to just make mid-course corrections in any case.<ref>This would please [[Gerd Gigerenzer]]. There is a real lesson here for business managers techno-futurists.</ref>
-A rolling ball with no force upon it will eventually stop. This is, so the theory goes, only because of the corruptions of reality. So too, a [[crisp packet|crisp packet blowing this way and that across St. Mark’s square]]. Once you have discounted all the contaminating effects of the real world; the friction, convection, dust, drafts and so on — all of which are subject to their own equally scientific, equally certain laws, just in this case uncalculated — it still does, we ''assume'' obey scientific canon — but good luck proving it. For every lunar module, crisp packet, or every rolling ball, ''for every mass that ever accelerates in our imperfect human world'', we give our models the benefit of a large and practically untestable doubt. We assume that observed divergence is purely a function of lack of data and calculating wherewithal.
+A rolling ball with no force acting upon it will eventually stop. This, so the theory goes, is only because of the corruptions of reality. So too, a [[crisp packet|crisp packet blowing this way and that across St. Mark’s square]]. Once you have discounted all the contaminating effects of the real world; the friction, convection, dust, drafts and so on — all of which are subject to their own equally scientific, equally certain laws, just in this case uncalculated — it still does, we ''assume'' obey scientific canon — but good luck proving it. For every lunar module, crisp packet, or every rolling ball, ''for every mass that ever accelerates in our imperfect human world'', we give our models the benefit of a large and practically untestable doubt.
+We presume that observed divergence is purely a function of lack of data and calculating wherewithal.
 Are we justified in extrapolating laws that hold for nomological machines to the real world? Do these imaginary regularity generators ''really'' tell us how wind-blown crisp packets, or any of the other myriad quotidian physical effects we see and take for granted every day, behave, or are we just taking this on trust? Is this a ''conjuring'' trick? To find out, read Cartwright’s book. By way of hint, it is called, {{br|How the Laws of Physics Lie}}.
@@ Line 42: / Line 44: @@
 ''All'' dice, to count as dice, are functionally ''identical''. Hold this thought: statistics is designed to work on populations ''that are functionally identical''.
-==== Map and territory as an immutable dualism: crossing and recrossing the threshold ====
+==== Map and territory as an immutable dualism: crossing and re-crossing the threshold ====
 But hold [[The map and the territory|map and  territory]] — model and reality — as an immutable dualism.  [[The map and the territory|Map, territory]]. [[Models.Behaving.Badly|Model, reality]]. [[Great delamination|Online, offline]]. [[Informal systems|Formal, informal]]. Narnia, the real world.