Re: OOP/OOD Philosophy

On 15 Jul 2005 10:19:22 -0700, "Mark Nicholls"
<Nicholls.Mark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
>Robert C. Martin wrote:
>> On 15 Jul 2005 01:35:15 -0700, "Mark Nicholls"
>> <Nicholls.Mark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Stefan Ram wrote:
>> >> "Mark Nicholls" <Nicholls.Mark@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> >Careful mathematics is a belief system based (usually) on the
>> >> >axioms of ZFC.
>> >>
>> >> It suffices to just specify the axioms as an assertion A and
>> >> then investigate the consequences of A. It is not neccessary
>> >> to "belief" that A is actually true.
>> >
>> >OK, I agree, but if we are to believe that we can apply the model to
>> >the universe around us, we must believe that the axioms apply to that
>> >universe
>>
>> Not quite. We use the logical system of math to describe empirical
>> observations. If the descriptions fail to match those observations,
>> then we choose new axioms.
>
>if they describe the empirical observation then by definition they
>match!

Consider Euclid's fifth postulate that parallel lines always maintain
the same distance from each other. He sought a proof that he was
unable to find. Nowadays we believe we live in a universe in which
parallel lines are very likely to either diverge or converge. We've
had to change our axioms.

Michelson and Morely showed that the speed of light was constant to
all frames of reference. We had to change our axioms.
>
>look, if we observer the pairs of numbers
>
>our specification is.....
>
><1,1>
><2,2>
><3,3>
><4,4>
><5,5>
><6,6>
><7,7>
>etc * 10,000 other pairs.
>
>then we may conjecture that the 2nd number = 1st
>
>i.e. y=x
>
>that satisfies the specification exactly, it is an exact model....there
>are others, but this one works exactly.
>
>so if we believe that y=x is in some sense an axiom governing the
>universe (i.e. the mapping exists between domain and model), then we
>can pick a new number 123456778 and expect to get
>
><123456778,123456778>
>
>seems sensible
>
>but if no such 1:1 correspondence exists, ever for any set of
>observations, then there is no reason to believe it will work, and you
>are as likely to get
>
><123456778,343534535>

This is exactly what happened when Michelson and Morely did their
experiment. The long held belief that observed velocity was relative
to the motion of the observer was shown to fail for very large
velocities. You pair above characterizes this beautifully.
>
>well done, you have just demolited the basis for scietific thought.

It seems to me that discrepancies of the sort you describe are the
force that *drives* scientific thought. We build a model for
phenomena that we observe to work in our local context. At first we
think this model is universal. Then we find other contexts where the
model does not hold; so we build a new model that holds for both.
This is how scientific understanding progresses.
>
>Now there is no reason for a model based on a set of experimental data,
>to ever possibly describe anything outside the originally observed set.

Are we talking past each other?

>> >So I should really say science and applied maths are belief systems.
>>
>> They are. But they are belief systems of a fundamentally different
>> kind than religion. Math is a belief that conclusions can be derived
>> from initial axioms through logic. Science is a belief that the laws
>> of the universe can be derived from observations and described by
>> math.
>
>yet you reject the basis of this belief? You reject the basis of
>scientific conjecture based on the 1:1 mapping from the problem domain
>into the model.

Why do you keep on telling me what I reject? If I reject something
I'll tell you. I disagree with your assertion that scientific belief
is based upon a 1:1 mapping of theory to experiment. Most scientists
think the mapping is 1:~1, and are much more interested in the
deviations than the agreements.
>
>> Religion is a belief based on faith.
>
>belief is faith
>
>dictionary.com
>
>Faith:
>
>"Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person,
>idea, or thing. "

I'll see your dictionary.com and raise you Hebrews 11:1

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen."

>you're playing with words again, and when I question your
>interpretation, it never seems to match whats in the dictionary.

Watch out for slippery generalizations, they become ad hominems.

I fully realize that the definition of religion I provided was
circular. In the end, religion is a circular belief system. In the
end, the reason someone believes is a religion is because they believe
in that religion.

>>
>> >If you believe F=MA applies, you must believe that time is absolute for
>> >all observers,
>>
>> We observe F=MA to apply in many contexts, and have observed that it
>> does not apply in others. In those contexts where we have observed
>> F=MA to apply, it applies for every observation and does not deviate.
>
>but this is simply wrong.

Exactly. The model is an approximation. And yet we believe that when
we apply F=MA to send a rocket to the moon, it will get there. When
we apply F=MA to our local context, we believe it matches reality,
even though we know the mapping is only 1:~1.

>time is not absolute in any context (it may be coincident, but even
>that is a highly constrained model where everything moves at the same
>velocity). F=MA always deviates, we just choose for practical reasons
>to not care about a 0.0000001% error based on an approximate
>specification of the universe.

Agreed.

>> Based upon this we conclude (believe) that within the contexts where
>> we have observed F=MA to apply, it will continue to apply in the
>> future.
>
>*why* will it apply.

That question is the essence of scientific faith. Once we have
created a model, like F=MA, we *believe* that the universe is stable
enough to allow us to apply that model in the future. We believe that
the laws of physics are repeatable. The only evidence we have of this
is a very long history of repeatability.

>because the base assumption of the 1:1 correspondence between domain
>and model, without this you're whistling in the wind.

We assume 1:1 for application within a constrained context like
sending a ship to the moon. As Michelson and Morley discovered, once
we leave our local context the 1:1 mapping can significantly degrade.

>>
>> >if you believe relativity, you can scrub this belief,
>>
>> We have observed the laws of relativity to correctly describe a vast
>> number of events and processes. And we have also observed situations
>> that appear to deviate from it.
>
>so we believe that one of the assumptions (in the specifications) is
>incorrect, the model is correct based on the specification.

We *know* that one of the assumptions of GR is incorrect. GR assumes
that the universe is smooth. QM tells us it is not. GR breaks down
as we study distances and energies where QM rules.
>
>>
>> >but there are a whole lot more including and the existence of the empty
>> >set, and the axiom of choice (or its negation), ZFC (or equivalent) etc
>> >etc
>>
>> Those axioms seem to generate a system of logic that has the
>> expressive power to describe most events in the world. So far we
>> haven't found a lot of contradictions. It took quite awhile, and a
>> lot of trial and error, to come up with a set of axioms that generated
>> a system that was so expressive.
>
>Yet they are beliefs and our continued application of them is based on
>the 1:1 correspondence, otherwise why believe any application of any
>model to the universe.

We believed in the previous axioms just as much, until we found holes
in them.

>On the issue of religion is based on some difference between 'faith'
>and 'belief'....are you not at best splitting hairs?

I don't believe so. ;-)

Scientific belief is based upon observation. Religious belief is not.
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.? John 20:19-29.

Scientists are doubting Thomases.




-----
Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: unclebob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Object Mentor Inc. | blog: www.butunclebob.com
The Agile Transition Experts | web: www.objectmentor.com
800-338-6716


"The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom,
but to set a limit to infinite error."
-- Bertolt Brecht, Life of Galileo
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OOP/OOD Philosophy
    ... >>> then we choose new axioms. ... universe otherwise your just writing numbers on a bit of paper. ... > phenomena that we observe to work in our local context. ... >>> Religion is a belief based on faith. ...
    (comp.object)
  • extending ZFC
    ... In general I like ZFC, but I think the usual formulation leaves some ... The axioms will included the corresponding ZFC axioms for the expanded ... the universe and geenrates new difficult questions. ... axiomatize that U is an inaccessible L-rank, ...
    (sci.math)
  • An Islamic Theology - Part 2
    ... It recognises that religion is one and universal, ... Allah - Allah is the self-existing original Absolute Reality, One, Unique ... Universe as well as being imminent in it and He is also personal in that His ... spirit is in man. ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • How long?? How long must this go on??
    ... Let's be honest about religion: ... guiding the ebb and flow of the Universe. ... kill in the name of whatever deity they told you ... now you are Islamic or Christian or Jewish - and what has changed? ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Why do you believe?
    ... Flawless Bridge between 'Science' and 'Religion' ... creation of the universe and its multifarious processes. ...
    (soc.religion.islam)