fiddled filter design - Page 3

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: fiddled filter design
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 17:32:02 +0000, Tom Gardner

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Organisms that use dumb evolution will be lunch for organisms that use
smart evolution. Evolution itself evolves; why wouldn't it?

And Occam's Razor is not a law of nature. Even the simplest bacteria
is stunningly complex, too complex for us to understand yet.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you insist something is not likely, you probably won't be the guy
who discovers it.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

My eyes and ears and kidneys are (currently) indistinguishable from
magic.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: fiddled filter design
On 09/11/18 22:35, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Smart organisms, whatever that might mean, also get eaten.

What on earth do you mean by "evolution evolves"?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Occam's Razor is a good principle. It is the core of the
scientific method and is one of the guiding concepts that
enabled us to progress beyond superstition.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I certainly won't discover it, because it isn't my
subject area.

But I am open to somebody competent discovering it
and - most importantly - providing convincing proff.



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well that's certainly 90 degree swerve, so I'll do another.

All three eyes? I have three eyes and I expect you do too.

My extremely primitive third eye has saved me from injury
on countless occasions.

Hint: it is more primitive that those found in a pit viper.

Re: fiddled filter design
On 10/11/18 11:56 am, Tom Gardner wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You say "us" as though JL also has progressed beyond superstition. His  
posts suggest otherwise :P

Re: fiddled filter design
On 10/11/18 06:59, Clifford Heath wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

"Us" in the sense that I can say "we" have two legs, even though
the mean number is slightly lower :)

Re: fiddled filter design
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 17:59:31 +1100, Clifford Heath

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Occam's Razor says that the simplest idea *that you can imagine* is
probably the correct explanation for a causality. That's absurd from a
number of aspects. Reliance on it would stop science in its tracks.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I design original things. They work.

We couldn't work together. You two are hostile to new ideas and I am
hostile to boring ideas.

We don't understand how a one-cell critter works, much less human
consciousness. I think amazing things remain to be discovered. You
probably don't.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: fiddled filter design
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 2:09:54 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
and
ing
e  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
re
e
s a
ense
uld
bout
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
you
sive
aged
o  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
s up
hat
u
n't
fic
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
.
e

That's not what it says at all. The simplest idea that fits all the facts i
s always the preferred idea, but one single non-conforming fact can force y
ou to look for new ideas.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

John Larkin designs things which he thinks are original, and they work well
 enough to satisfy his customers.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Being critical of "new" ideas is an essential part of science. A lot of the
 ideas that John Larkin floats aren't original, and have long since been sh
ot down.

Whether or not an idea is "boring" has nothing to do with whether it is rig
ht. Nothing could be more boring than the fact that sun rises in east, but  
that's no justification for being hostile to the idea that it's going to do
 it again tomorrow.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

We do understand how some single cell bacteria work, and we've even made a  
simplified one that still works

https://www.nature.com/news/minimal-cell-raises-stakes-in-race-to-harness-s
ynthetic-life-1.19633

Human "consciousness" needs to be better defined before we can hope to unde
rstand it, though there's a argument that the idea of human consciousness i
s essentially a defect in the language we use to describe it.

If we were forced to express the idea in one of those program definition la
nguages (like Z) which can let you formally prove the correctness of the pr
ogram whose function has been defined in that language, you might find that
 "consciousness" was a undefinable delusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_notation

None of this is any kind of denial that amazing things remain to be discove
red.

The kind of rubbish that John Larkin will believe in - climate change denia
l comes to mind - doesn't suggest that John Larkin is a good guide to the n
ew and credible. He looks more like a gullible twit.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: fiddled filter design
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Only to an absurdist.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

why?  Can you give an example?  What science would not get done?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Is this merely a claim of adequacy, or do you intend ths as evidence
of something, if so what?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

a new idea that does the exact same ting as the old idea but is more
complicated is useful only for entertainment.

--  
  When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

Re: fiddled filter design
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 02:53:37 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quantum mechanics. It's so much more complex than classical physics.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That ideas that are correct aren't automatically the simplest ones.
That Occam's Razor is not correct by recursion.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not if it's right.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: fiddled filter design
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 20:02:41 -0800, John Larkin

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If it's not right, it doesn't meet Occam's requirements.  Occam's
Razor just suggests that given two answers, the one with the fewest
assumptions is probably the right one. Occam's razor is just a
suggestion not a natural law.

Re: fiddled filter design
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 23:17:50 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Occam's Razor applied before a phenom is explained, is dangerous.
Applied afterwards, it's trivial.

Of course the only correct explanation is the simplest correct
explanation.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: fiddled filter design
On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 4:02:08 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 a
Quoted text here. Click to load it
is  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

John Larkin being as uncomprehending as ever.

Occam's Razor is a rule about choosing between explanations. It's irrelevan
t before somebody has come up with at least two plausible explanations, and
 becomes irrelevant again after a particular explanation has been picked as
 the most plausible.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Which ignores the process of working out whether it is actually correct.

Mathematics can generate proofs of correctness. The most that can be said a
bout a scientific explanation is that it hasn't yet been falsified - any cl
aim that a particular explanation is "correct" is unscientific, though scie
nce can demonstrate that a lot of explanations are incorrect.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: fiddled filter design
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 09:01:58 -0800, John Larkin

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Of course, afterwards it's not just trivial but it's tautological.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You're making exactly the dangerous error you complain about above.

                     - OR -

The solar system's orbits can be described in epicycles or we may be
living on the inside surface of a sphere but the math quickly gets
wild.  Occam suggests that we shouldn't be working so hard to explain
something that had been explained in much simpler terms.

Re: fiddled filter design
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 20:59:58 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The issue isn't whether whether the theory is simple, it's whether it
always produces quantitatively correct predictions and conforms with
experiment.

Again, is there any situation in physics where two different theories
are both experimentally verifyable?

At best Occam's Razor saves time by prioritizing the testing of a list
of possible theories; do the easy-to-analyze ones first. But that's
just time management.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: fiddled filter design
On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 3:17:51 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
s
om a
 His  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
am
e

You've talked about the perils of curve fitting. The experiment is always g
oing to have some experimental error, and a good theoretical model isn't go
ing to include them. Using enough parameter always let you fit everything,  
including the noise, but it isn't a useful exercise.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Heisenberg's Matrix mechanics and Schroedinger's wave equations both worked
. It took Dirac to demonstrate that they were different embodiments of the  
same idea.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's more a question of how  many independent parameters you need to model  
the experimental results. "Easy-to-analyse" doesn't really come into it.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: fiddled filter design
On 12/11/18 3:17 pm, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, of course. Every theory has an indeterminate (potentially infinite)  
number of alternatives; just add any non-observable to a theory and you  
have a new theory that fits as well as the original one.

And then there's equivalence, which Bill Sloman has pointed out.  
Isomorphism between theories isn't always easy to spot or to prove.

And then there's quantum mechanics Copenhagen interpretation vs many  
worlds, etc. Difficult to prove, but that's just it; until there is  
evidence that favours one or the other, we have no need nor reason to  
know which is correct.

Clifford Heath

Re: fiddled filter design
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 20:17:42 -0800, John Larkin

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But more than one theory can explain current knowledge.  None
satisfies tomorrow's.  How many times has the orbit of Mercury been
"finally explained".
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sure.  Fit the equations and it all verifies.  AGW is explained by
computer models.  It's done all the time.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Precisely the point.

Re: fiddled filter design
On 12/11/2018 15:58, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

As you become able to measure ever more accurately then it requires an  
ever more precise theory to match. Science always works by stepwise  
refinement until someone comes along with an experiment that breaks the  
current accepted paradigm in some more spectacular way.

When the first binary pulsar was found having a super precise external  
clock at great distance allowed an error lurking in the VSOP  
perturbation series for the position of Jupiter to be determined when  
experimental observations of the light path delay did not match  
"theory". It turned out that there was a bug in the automatic generation  
of FORTRAN code continuation cards when the number of them exceeded 9.

Until you have the means to do the test you cannot know if the theory is  
correct or the experiment has found something new.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Newtonian dynamics and special relativity will both predict the motion  
of projectiles and billiard balls to well beyond the limits of any  
experimental verification. Any new more complete theory invariably  
contains older theories as a weak field limiting case. You will do a lot  
of extra work using relativity for dynamics with v<<c but you still get  
the same answers give or take an error term which is O(v^2/c^2).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The purpose of Occam's razor is to avoid adding unnecessary complexity  
just for the sake of it. Theorists often want to add extra symmetry for  
aethetic reasons - sometimes it is justified and leads to useful  
insights and discoveries. Dirac's idea of positrons for instance.

http://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/modern/deaton.html

Put simply a model requiring just three parameters to fit *all* the  
observations is generally preferable to one which requires as many free  
parameters as there are measurements all other htings being equal. Too  
many people are inclined to overfit their data with over optimistic  
ideas about the noise level.

--  
Regards,
Martin Brown

Re: fiddled filter design
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:23:38 +0000, Martin Brown

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Exactly my point but in this case it was quite a while between the
measurement and the theory that explained it.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: fiddled filter design
On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 8:02:48 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

[about Occam's Razor]
Quoted text here. Click to load it

There is no classical physics model that explains/predicts the atoms in the periodic table,
but quantum physics (starting with the Bohr atom) does.

The 'so much more complex' model is the simplest one that works, because in its
absence, we have hundreds of elements/isotopes instead of three elementary particles
in combinations.

Classical physics also doesn't explain the chemical bond... and there's more than huncreds
of variations there.

Re: fiddled filter design
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 3:02:48 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

But it had to be invented for cases where classical physics broke down. Pla
nck invented quantisation to avoid "the ultraviolet catastrophe".

It's really a very bad example.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it


The ideas that work are the only ones that get tested by Occam's razor.
The test is not that the idea is simple, but rather that it is no more comp
licated than is necessary to fit the facts. Several different explanations  
can be equally complicated and fit the facts - as came out during the devel
opment of quantum theory. It took more work to demonstrate that that they w
ere different ways of formulating the same underlying idea. There was no pa
rtiuclar reason why they should have been ...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That John Larkin is a bit vague about what Occam's razor actually means.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But how do you prove that it's right? If the complicated explanation makes  
exactly the same predictions as the simpler one, why should you prefer it?

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Site Timeline