Just Data Fitting?

At times, our explanations may be no more than "curve fitting." This means we identify patterns in data and simply draw a line through them, whether mathematically or otherwise.

This resembles the "machine learning" predictions found in modern data science. With sufficient data and parameters, nearly any outcome can be explained.

Occasionally, the fit is nearly perfect, but more often, it remains an approximation. In many cases, we lack a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms at play.

Examples include predicting stock prices based on news articles, which often yield very rough predictions. Similarly, determining the optimal settings for an industrial oven to achieve the best plastic molding results can be accurate, yet we may not fully grasp why those settings are effective.

Next, we encounter mechanistic empiricism: theories that propose specific mechanisms while condensing numerous details into simplified measurable parameters, essentially engaging in a form of curve fitting.

Models in climate science, aerodynamics, and the spread of pandemics often fall into this category. These models include parameters that cannot be exactly predetermined but are estimated similarly to machine learning techniques, such as assessing cloud reflectivity against ice caps, air viscosity, wing lift, or viral incubation periods and reproduction rates.

Lastly, I propose the existence of both qualitative (conceptual) and quantitative (numerical) fundamental theories that may represent genuine truths about our universe.

In these scenarios, the assertion that they are "just models" seems rather far-fetched.

Qualitative Truth

Consider concepts such as the approximately 100 known chemical elements or the idea that DNA and genes dictate our biological structure and functions.

Are these truly just "models"? While they may not represent the absolute truth of quantum mechanics, they are undeniably substantial.

Can anyone realistically argue that there's a possibility these concepts are incorrect or that a simpler, more fundamental explanation exists?

It's widely accepted that chemicals consist of nearly indestructible atoms, which come in roughly 100 different forms. This is a fact that seems impossible to dispute.

Unless we are living in a simulation, this atomic perspective serves as the foundational reality of the materials that compose the universe.

In biology, we refer to this as "The Central Dogma." The painstakingly acquired biological truths of molecular biology allow us to trace the journey of genes from DNA to RNA to proteins and their respective functions.

These findings are simply factual!

The Operating System of the Universe

At its core, I assert that physics has reached the quantitative truths of reality that underpin all the aforementioned concepts.

Why do I believe this?

For at least seven compelling reasons:

1. The fundamental particles of nature (like leptons, quarks, and bosons) and fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong nuclear, and gravity) along with the peculiar laws of quantum mechanics potentially represent the base-level nature of the universe.
2. In principle, everything else can be derived from these foundational elements.
3. Current theories, where both experimental and theoretical knowledge exists, show predictions that align with reality up to 1 part in 10 billion (e.g., the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, known as "g-2").
4. Many theories possess very few fitted parameters while accurately explaining numerous experiments within unavoidable error margins. These theories pass Occam's Razor with great ease.
5. Even when parameters are adjusted, they often correspond to concrete tangible realities, such as the electron's mass or the speed of light, rather than meaningless proportionalities devoid of mechanisms.
6. These theories tend to be remarkably concise, with little to no extraneous content to accommodate exceptions or arbitrary adjustments.
7. Many advancements emerged purely from theoretical speculation and fortuitously matched observed reality.

Reality

I contend that our current theories on:

• The fundamental forces & particles & quantum mechanics
• The chemical elements
• The genetic basis of life and reproduction

While not flawless, these theories essentially convey actual truths about the universe.

They are not merely models.

Some purists might dispute this stance, but I stand firm in my conviction.

That doesn't preclude the possibility of improved alternative descriptions emerging. However, the likelihood of such breakthroughs occurring with these theories remains low.

Can anyone genuinely conceive of a better or alternative explanation for the chemical elements? Is it conceivable that there aren’t approximately 100 stable arrangements of protons and neutrons? Or that genes don't truly exist?

My argument is centered on the precision of these low-parameter theories. It's evident that this is not merely parameter fitting.

I argue from a standpoint of probability: the exceptional accuracy with which we explain phenomena across such vast domains using these theories is not coincidental.

Philosophy of Science

Sometimes I ponder whether the philosophers of science who assert that "it's just models" are genuinely grounded in the realities of scientific practice.

Have they truly engaged with enough scientific work to distinguish between data fitting, empirical theories, and fundamental physics?

Did Descartes or Bohm ever interact with the Standard Model? Even Bohm did not witness the astounding success of gauge invariance in generating the weak and strong force Lagrangians, nor the empirical triumph of these renormalizable theories as QED on non-Abelian steroids.

And concerning the "stable modes" of these theories in chemistry, would not aliens possess an identical comprehension of chemical elements?

I often wonder how similar their periodic table would appear compared to ours.

As for the peculiar principles underlying quantum mechanics, perhaps there exists a more comprehensible formulation.

But that seems improbable.

What is evident is that these theories enable calculations accurate to ten decimal places.

Much of this success originated from pure theoretical contemplation that fortuitously aligned with reality.

It's a mathematical universe.

Some of these concepts are not merely "models."

They represent the actual principles that govern the universe.