On 19/08/18 08:44, David Kastrup wrote:
Wols Lists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> writes:
On 19/08/18 00:34, David Kastrup wrote:
As any theoretical physicist will tell you, anything that involves
actual hardware also is maths.
Are you telling me that maths PREscribes reality?
No. Reality's math is inseparable from reality. The Schrödinger
equation models state spaces, not states.
You've just used the word "model". And Schrodinger describes what MAY
happen. I know it's just words, but what is reality? As far as I'm
concerned, if it's a model, or a future possibility, it's not "real".
If hardware is maths, then how comes physicists aren't creating the
reality we would like to live in?
Determining the laws of the universe does not give you a handle for
changing them.
The whole point of patents is that they describe what happens in
reality, what we usually do not understand of the maths, or how we tip
the maths to work in our favour.
The math holds regardless of whether you can think of a way to make use
of it.
And patents are meant to cover the *use* we make of that maths.
I like to draw a little distinction between mathematics and science.
A mathematical proof says "this is logically correct". A scientific
proof says "this is not reality". Theoretical physicists aren't
scientists, they're mathematicians.
I doubt they'll be considering your verdict authoritive.
Well, they're all philosophers, but within the field of philosophy
there's a lot of argument about where the borders are. Okay, this is my
view of it, but to my mind there is a clear distinction. Maths is the
*logical* *modeling* to either explain what is happening, or try to
predict what will happen. That's why I said theoretical physics are
mathematicians. The scientists are the guys either getting data for the
theoreticians to explain, or trying to test their predictions. (The
reality, of course, is that many people fall into *both* camps.)
Patents are there for technologists, for people who deal with
scientific proofs, not for mathematicians dealing with mathematical
proofs. A patent deals with "this is how we get reality to do what we
want", not with "this is what logic says should happen".
Newton is easy to prove MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT. He is also easy to
prove SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG.
So you say that Special (and General) Relativity should be patentable?
No. Because they're maths. They're models. They're not real. You need to
separate the DESCRIPTION from the INSTANTIATION. A patent is protected
by copyright because it is not a thing. It's the thing it describes that
is protected by patent.
(And from my studies, Relativity can't be patented for other reasons.
Like Newtonian Mechanics and eg Boyles Law, Special Relativity doesn't
actually work in reality. It contains a whole bunch of simplifications.
Likewise, General Relativity is unsolvable even for the simplest cases.)
To my mind, you have to get clear in your mind the distinction between
the description, and what is described. And there's a lot of people out
there with a vested interest in muddying the water. (Not helped, as you
have shown, by the philosophical question "what is reality?" :-) Like
most things philosophical, there probably is no definitive answer ...
Cheers,
Wol
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
