"Every object that we perceive appears in innumerable aspects. The concept of the object is the invariant of all these aspects. From this point of view, the present universally used system of concepts in which particles and waves appear simultaneously, can be completely justified. The latest research on nuclei and elementary particles has led us, however, to limits beyond which this system of concepts itself does not appear to suffice. The lesson to be learned from what I have told of the origin of quantum mechanics is that probable refinements of mathematical methods will not suffice to produce a satisfactory theory, but that somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept, unjustified by experience, which we must eliminate to open up the road." (Max Born, "The Statistical Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics", [Nobel lecture] 1954)
"[…] as every law of nature implies the existence of an invariant, it follows that every law of nature is a constraint. […] Science looks for laws; it is therefore much concerned with looking for constraints. […] the world around us is extremely rich in constraints. We are so familiar with them that we take most of them for granted, and are often not even aware that they exist. […] A world without constraints would be totally chaotic." (W Ross Ashby, "An Introduction to Cybernetics", 1956)
"Many of the activities of living organisms permit this double aspect. On the one hand the observer can notice the great deal of actual movement and change that occurs, and on the other hand he can observe that throughout these activities, so far as they are coordinated or homeostatic, there are invariants and constancies that show the degree of regulation that is being achieved." (W Ross Ashby, "An Introduction to Cybernetics", 1956)
"[...] the existence of any invariant over a set of phenomena implies a constraint, for its existence implies that the full range of variety does not occur. The general theory of invariants is thus a part of the theory of constraints. Further, as every law of nature implies the existence of an invariant, it follows that every law of nature is a constraint." (W Ross Ashby, "An Introduction to Cybernetics", 1956)
"Through all the meanings runs the basic idea of an 'invariant': that although the system is passing through a series of changes, there is some aspect that is unchanging; so some statement can be made that, in spite of the incessant changing, is true unchangingly." (W Ross Ashby, "An Introduction to Cybernetics", 1956)
"A satisfactory prediction of the sequential properties of learning data from a single experiment is by no means a final test of a model. Numerous other criteria - and some more demanding - can be specified. For example, a model with specific numerical parameter values should be invariant to changes in independent variables that explicitly enter in the model." (Robert R Bush & Frederick Mosteller,"A Comparison of Eight Models?", Studies in Mathematical Learning Theory, 1959)
"We know many laws of nature and we hope and expect to discover more. Nobody can foresee the next such law that will be discovered. Nevertheless, there is a structure in laws of nature which we call the laws of invariance. This structure is so far-reaching in some cases that laws of nature were guessed on the basis of the postulate that they fit into the invariance structure." (Eugene P Wigner, "The Role of Invariance Principles in Natural Philosophy", 1963)
"[..] principle of equipresence: A quantity present as an independent variable in one constitutive equation is so present in all, to the extent that its appearance is not forbidden by the general laws of Physics or rules of invariance. […] The principle of equipresence states, in effect, that no division of phenomena is to be laid down by constitutive equations." (Clifford Truesdell, "Six Lectures on Modern Natural Philosophy", 1966)
"It is now natural for us to try to derive the laws of nature and to test their validity by means of the laws of invariance, rather than to derive the laws of invariance from what we believe to be the laws of nature." (Eugene P Wigner, "Symmetries and Reflections", 1967)
"As a metaphor - and I stress that it is intended as a metaphor - the concept of an invariant that arises out of mutually or cyclically balancing changes may help us to approach the concept of self. In cybernetics this metaphor is implemented in the ‘closed loop’, the circular arrangement of feedback mechanisms that maintain a given value within certain limits. They work toward an invariant, but the invariant is achieved not by a steady resistance, the way a rock stands unmoved in the wind, but by compensation over time. Whenever we happen to look in a feedback loop, we find the present act pitted against the immediate past, but already on the way to being compensated itself by the immediate future. The invariant the system achieves can, therefore, never be found or frozen in a single element because, by its very nature, it consists in one or more relationships - and relationships are not in things but between them." (Ernst von Glasersfeld German, "Cybernetics, Experience and the Concept of Self", 1970)
"Non-standard analysis frequently simplifies substantially the proofs, not only of elementary theorems, but also of deep results. This is true, e.g., also for the proof of the existence of invariant subspaces for compact operators, disregarding the improvement of the result; and it is true in an even higher degree in other cases. This state of affairs should prevent a rather common misinterpretation of non-standard analysis, namely the idea that it is some kind of extravagance or fad of mathematical logicians. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Rather, there are good reasons to believe that non-standard analysis, in some version or other, will be the analysis of the future." (Kurt Gödel, "Remark on Non-standard Analysis", 1974)
No comments:
Post a Comment