TITLE: Science Seeks Regularity
AUTHOR: Eugene Wallingford
DATE: April 15, 2017 10:39 AM
DESC: 
-----
BODY:
A week or so ago I tweeted that
<A HREF="https://twitter.com/wallingf/status/847797087697850368">
   Carver Mead was blowing my mind</A>:
an electron a mile long!  I read about that idea in
<A HREF="http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html">
   this Spectator interview</A>
that covers both Mead's personal life and his professional work
in engineering.  Well worth a read.

Mead is not satisfied with the current state of physics and
biology, or at least with the incomplete theories that we seem to
have accepted in lieu of a more coherent conceptual understanding
of how the world works.  Ultimately, he sides with Einstein in
his belief that there is a more coherent explanation:

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
 I think Einstein was being a scientist in the truest sense in
 his response to the Copenhagen interpretation.  He said that
 none of us would be scientists if deep down we didn't believe
 there is a set of regularities in the operation of physical
 law.  That is a matter of faith.  It is not something anybody
 has proven, but none of us would be scientists if we didn't
 have that faith.
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like Einstein, Mead  believes that unpredictability at the
lowest levels of a system does not imply intrinsic uncertainty.
We need a different view that brings regularities to the
forefront of our theories.

I also like this line from near the end of the interview:

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
 People don't even know where to put the decimal point.
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mead says this as part of his assurance that artificial intelligence
is nowhere near the level of what even the fruit fly can do, let
alone the human brain.  A lot has happened in AI during fifteen
years since this interview;
<A HREF="http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2016-03.html#e2016-03-14T17_27_06.htm">
   a computer program</A>
even beats our best players in Go now.  Still, there is so much
that we don't understand and cannot replicate.

I wonder if Mead's "decimal point" aphorism also might apply,
metaphorically, to his view of the areas of science in which we
have settled for, or are currently stuck with, unsatisifying
theories.  Our mathematical models cover a lot of ground, decimal
point-wise, but there is still a simpler, more coherent picture to
see.  Maybe, though, that is the engineer in Mead showing through.
-----