Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T18:11:16.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Computer Simulations, Idealizations and Approximations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Ronald Laymon*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University

Extract

It’s uncontroversial that notions of idealization and approximation are central to understanding computer simulations and their rationale. So, for example, one common form of computer simulation is to abandon a realistic approach that is computationally non-tractable for a more idealized but computationally tractable approach. Many simulations of systems of interacting members can be understood this way. In such simulations, realistic descriptions of individual members are replaced with less realistic descriptions which have the virtue of making interactions computationally tractable. Such simulations can be supplemented with empirically determined correction factors which render the output produced by means of the idealizations more in accord, one hopes, with what the more realistic approach would have produced had it been computationally tractable. Another way to utilize computers is to replace an idealized but analytically tractable account of some phenomenon with a less idealized account which has no closed form or analytical solutions but where the computer can be used generate approximations to the desired solutions.

Type
Part XIII. Computer Simulations in the Physical Sciences
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to express my gratitude to the National Science Foundation (DIR-8920699) and the Ohio State University for providing funding for the project of which this paper forms a part.

References

Balzer, W., Moulines, U. and Sneed, J. (1987), An Architectonic for Science. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigenbaum, M. J. (1980), “Universal Behavior in Nonlinear Systems”, Los Alamos Science 1: 427. Reprinted in P. Civtanovic (ed.) (1984), Universality in Chaos. Bristol: Adam-Hilger, pp. 49-84.Google Scholar
Ford, J. (1989), “What is Chaos, that We should be Mindful of It?”, in The New Physics, Davies, Paul (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 348372.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1970), “On the Extension of Beth’s Semantics of Physical Theories”, Philosophy of Science 37: 325-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laymon, R. (1985), “Idealizations and the Testing of Theories by Experimentation”, in Experiment and Observation in Modern Science, Achinstein, P. and Hannaway, O. (eds.). Boston: MIT Press and Bradford Books, pp. 147-73.Google Scholar
Laymon, R. (1987), “Using Scott Domains to Explicate the Notions of Approximate and Idealized Data”, Philosophy of Science, 54: 194221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laymon, R. (1989a), “The Application of Idealized Scientific Theories to Engineering”, Synthese, 81: 353-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laymon, R. (1989b), “Cartwright and the Lying Laws of Physics”, Journal of Philosophy, 136: 353372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, K. (1973), Counterfactuals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lin, C.C. and Segel, L.A. (1974), Mathematics Applied to Deterministic Problems in the Natural Sciences. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Manes, E.G. and Arbib, M.A. (1986), Algebraic Approaches to Program Semantics. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulines, C. and Sneed, J.D. (1979), “Suppes’ Philosophy of Physics”, in Patrick Suppes, Bogdan, Radu J. (ed.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Moore, R.E. (1966), Interval Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1970), Outline of a Mathematical Theory of Computation. Technical Monograph PRG-2, Oxford University Computing Laboratory.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1981), Lectures on a Mathematical Theory of Computation. Technical Monograph PRG-19, Oxford University Computing Laboratory.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1982), “Domains for Denotational Semantics”, in Automata, Languages and Programming. Nielson, M. and Schmidt, E. M. (eds.). New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 577613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. and Strachey, C. (1971), Toward a Mathematical Semantics for Computer Languages. Technical Monograph PRG-6, Oxford University Computing Laboratory.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (1989), The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Tennent, R.D. (1981), Principles of Programming Languages. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar