Given the importance of mathematical models
they have for modern researchers, I am
documented and I found two explanations
how to use them.
The first [1] in biology and the second [2]
for the climate. I do not know if by chance or for
some invisible hand, even in this
case I noticed the different attitude in the
their use. Very cautious and aware
of the limits of virtual simulations the first
and very confident the second.
In the second at a certain point Pasini
he writes: "Obviously, a model will be
considered valid if he is able to rebuild the
the past climate: only then will it be possible
use for future weather forecasts. "
I remember an article in Le magazine
Science of several years ago of a gentleman who
he declared that he had found the formula for the
prediction of solar stains.
In the article it was reported that the formula
was rather elaborated with little variables
clear though actually provided the results
right for the past. The article ended
saying the formula was abandoned
as it then wronged the prediction of
those future!
In the first, the author writes: "Online
principle, applying a model to a
certain system can lead to two
ways to better understand the
same: 1) verifying whether the model
mathematician preaches properly, or less,
the behavior of the system (and in
both cases understanding the system
it is enriched); "Here it is said
clearly it is considered valid if
"predicates correctly".
In short there is no reason to reason
scientifically with the alarmists, if ever
I had some doubt (Socrates
docet).
But let's use the models in the course
of the History of Science.
Before the advent of computers the models
were elaborated by the human mind.
Historically it is assigned to Democritus the
"atomistic" model of matter.
This model is so deep that
still today, despite the physics of the
particles have denied it, he continues
affecting the attitude of many
scientific dissemination.
The atomistic model in fact predicts that there
is a single and indivisible particle that
it is the whole matter. So the
difference in quality of different materials
can be reduced to the different quantity and
then the structure of the atoms. How is it
said in nuclear physics laboratories is not
no such particles have ever been found
the atom remains composed of different particles
with different qualities.
The atomistic model is dead, the atom is alive.
In this case carried in the logic
rather than in physics.
Modern computers work
exactly according to the model of
Democritus. In this case the atom is the bit
which has two values: "High and low".
We can say a loaded or unloaded atom,
present or absent.
All the wonders you admire in the movies
modern and in video games are one
sequence of logic states. Also all the calculations
and virtual models are logical constructs
based on the I / O bit.
To think that the complexity of reality is
reducible to a sequence of I and O is one
real muddyness (Film Matrix). Self
so it was in fact we could use gods
supercomputers instead of accelerators
of particles to know how it is constituted
matter or support telescopes and probes
spacecraft to know the cosmos.
The fact is, as Paul wrote well
Torture, virtual modeling can not
replace verification and verification is not in
ability to describe behaviors
but anticipate those systems
future: Observation!
If so, it was not the interpretation
of the quarters of Nostradamus, always
accurate after the event has happened,
should be counted among the disciplines
"Scientific" .®
