I'm sorry, but I think you misinterpret what compression is all about?
Heat is a random process. That process has a non-random component though. The phenomenon is compressed by describing it as a random distribution of impulses around that mean, given by temperature.
In effect, you construct an algorithm that translates model parameters to predicted measurements. Any algorithm can be described as a function.
Your idea of how models are concluded by testing causal assumptions is cargo-cult science. It is only partially correct and vastly misleading. In particular, such testing isn't always possible even in principle. You have untestable properties and parts of models that are simply chosen in lieu of better alternatives.
By restricting yourself to such simple-minded testing, you blind yourself to large parts of reality even. Many interesting topics have no way of completely controlling conditions for example. They are not arbitrarily repeatable either. Astronomy, economics, psychology, biology...the world is bigger than your approach can account for.
> In particular, such testing isn't always possible even in principle
You're the one saying it's a compression of measurements. How do you think we build models without any then? If you are aware that we do.
> Many interesting topics have no way of completely controlling conditions for example
Yes, and in these cases, much of what's produced is pseudoscience. Much of psychology is just taking surveys and compressing them, that's why it's unreporducible trash.
> The phenomenon is compressed by describing it as a random distribution of impulses around that mean
'The phenomenon' isnt something 'compressible'. Compression in this sense means only a condition on an equation describing an association.
The science of heat includes a model of atoms, molecules, flow, motion, etc. None of which are "Equations" but semantics for interpreting equations. The equations, given a "merely associative" semantics, are useless.
All the things we discovered exist are science; and all the ways they work. The very language you're using here is a product of scientific disocvery.
There was nothing to "compress", and is never anything to "compress". The world behaves differently depending on how you measure it; there are an infinite number of measures for any given system; and no "compression" of them -- not even all of them -- is that system.
A sphere is not it's shadow, nor even all its shadows. It's the cause of its shadow -- and processes properties that no model of its shadows possess.
Heat is a random process. That process has a non-random component though. The phenomenon is compressed by describing it as a random distribution of impulses around that mean, given by temperature. In effect, you construct an algorithm that translates model parameters to predicted measurements. Any algorithm can be described as a function.
Your idea of how models are concluded by testing causal assumptions is cargo-cult science. It is only partially correct and vastly misleading. In particular, such testing isn't always possible even in principle. You have untestable properties and parts of models that are simply chosen in lieu of better alternatives.
By restricting yourself to such simple-minded testing, you blind yourself to large parts of reality even. Many interesting topics have no way of completely controlling conditions for example. They are not arbitrarily repeatable either. Astronomy, economics, psychology, biology...the world is bigger than your approach can account for.