My OperaModels and The Scientific Method
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 11:37:22 PM
When we observe the world, we do so via a model generated by our minds. Our senses absorb data in various forms and pass that information on to our brain, which then processes this information and organizes it in some meaningful way. The concept of a mental model is not a new one. The idea that there is a disconnect between what we sense and what really exists has been around for ages. In Steven Hawking's new book "The Grand Design", he talks about these models and what they mean for Scientific Theory, which brings me to the subject of this post, which is somewhat different from the subjects Steven describes in said book.
The Scientific Method is based on the notion that one can perform observations to prove or disprove a concept. This notion is rooted in the belief that there is a level of purity involved in the process of measurement that is not involved in other forms of inference. The implication is, of course, that observation is the highest form of posit validation. The idea of a model doesn't apply strictly to human observation either, rather, even a device that performs a measurement does so with some set of assumptions. In that case, these assumptions form the foundation of the model from which measurements are made.
But observation only gets us so far. In fact, when you apply this paradigm to electrons, for example, you end up getting some very strange results. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example, states that as one increases ones certainty with respect to the position of a particle, one decreases ones certainty with respect to the momentum of the particle. This principle is manifest entirely in the process of measurement. I'm willing to argue that this principle arises out of the application of a classical process (The Scientific Method) to a non-classical (or quantum, if you'd like) concept. (Particles)
Another outcome of this line of thought is demonstrated by a thought experiment called Schrödinger's cat. The result of this thought experiment is that one must accept that at a given time prior to observation of the state of the cat, it is both alive and dead. Statistics can be built around this that properly predict the results of experiments of this sort. These statistics are resoundingly proven to be accurate. But is this really an accurate picture of the universe?
In order to determine the answer to that question, we are left with the tools provided by The Scientific Method. But these tools all require us to perform a measurement. I'm willing to argue that this is the real problem with the current state of physics. Physicists around the world today are struggling to find a "Theory of Everything", a unified theory of physics. I argue that they are looking in the wrong places. The problems that arise when trying to unify Quantum Theory with Relative Theory are caused by the fact that The Scientific Method is a process formed within the classical model of the universe.
So, is there another process we can use to verify posits about the nature of reality which is framed in a non-classical model? Can we determine the laws of nature without using the process of observation and measurement? That is, in my opinion, what the real question on everyone's mind should be.
The Scientific Method is based on the notion that one can perform observations to prove or disprove a concept. This notion is rooted in the belief that there is a level of purity involved in the process of measurement that is not involved in other forms of inference. The implication is, of course, that observation is the highest form of posit validation. The idea of a model doesn't apply strictly to human observation either, rather, even a device that performs a measurement does so with some set of assumptions. In that case, these assumptions form the foundation of the model from which measurements are made.
But observation only gets us so far. In fact, when you apply this paradigm to electrons, for example, you end up getting some very strange results. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example, states that as one increases ones certainty with respect to the position of a particle, one decreases ones certainty with respect to the momentum of the particle. This principle is manifest entirely in the process of measurement. I'm willing to argue that this principle arises out of the application of a classical process (The Scientific Method) to a non-classical (or quantum, if you'd like) concept. (Particles)
Another outcome of this line of thought is demonstrated by a thought experiment called Schrödinger's cat. The result of this thought experiment is that one must accept that at a given time prior to observation of the state of the cat, it is both alive and dead. Statistics can be built around this that properly predict the results of experiments of this sort. These statistics are resoundingly proven to be accurate. But is this really an accurate picture of the universe?
In order to determine the answer to that question, we are left with the tools provided by The Scientific Method. But these tools all require us to perform a measurement. I'm willing to argue that this is the real problem with the current state of physics. Physicists around the world today are struggling to find a "Theory of Everything", a unified theory of physics. I argue that they are looking in the wrong places. The problems that arise when trying to unify Quantum Theory with Relative Theory are caused by the fact that The Scientific Method is a process formed within the classical model of the universe.
So, is there another process we can use to verify posits about the nature of reality which is framed in a non-classical model? Can we determine the laws of nature without using the process of observation and measurement? That is, in my opinion, what the real question on everyone's mind should be.
