N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 01 2016,07:57) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 01 2016,05:52) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 31 2016,23:39) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 31 2016,22:43) | | Yes, you just have variables, which are basically just labels, not careful and ground-truthed simulations of biochemical processes that develop from first principles. |
If Erwin Schrödinger or other great math/logic modeler were here right now then you would be in big big trouble, for saying that.
Operational definitions are not a substitute for being able to make it happen on paper, then later on a computer screen. All else is just talk... |
You're no Schrodinger.
Operational and theoretical definitions are a prerequisite for doing anything useful.
Modellers have to demonstrate that their algorithms are appropriate and that their math matches reality, otherwise it's no better that Snowflakes = Snowflakes + 1. You haven't done that. |
It still sounds like you are saying that Albert Einstein did not need to know that E=MC^2.
I have to get to my day job. Then I have to review the results of a long test of the ID Lab-6 that will meanwhile be running on the computer. |
| Quote | | It still sounds like you are saying that Albert Einstein did not need to know that E=MC^2. |
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Einstein intuited and then proved that e=mc^2, but he didn't "know it" until he finished his work.
He combined flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis. He was very concerned with thinking accurately about things and matching his ideas to reality, although at times he did this via brilliant thought experiments. He relied on other people's lab work, and he specialized in thinking about and resolving apparent contradictions. He used math: he figured that nature should follow the simplest math available. This initially served him very well, but it turned out to be the wrong strategy for him once he turned 40.
|
