< 1 2 3 4 > 
 
   
 

It’s all physics….... 

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15711
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
25 September 2017 18:06
 
Kalessin - 25 September 2017 04:03 PM

I’ve read the thread and no-one has said “actually, it’s all mathematics” ... why not?

Um, maybe because mathematics is a description of physics. Unless you believe that mathematics is a physical thing.

 
 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  128
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
25 September 2017 18:55
 
GAD - 25 September 2017 06:06 PM

Um, maybe because mathematics is a description of physics. Unless you believe that mathematics is a physical thing.

Um (really?), I think that’s the opposite of what I was saying? 

* Physics - a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions.
* Mathematics - the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations.

I would further put up the assertion that mathematics can generally be seen as a priori analytic rather than empirical, or synthetic for definitions.  For Hume, logic and mathematics are relations of ideas, and everything in them is analytic a priori.  Another example - Euclidean geometry starts from definitions and axioms and makes deductions from the axioms. It is not necessary to go out, to draw lines and angles and to measure real geometric figures. 

Perhaps in earlier times physics might have been considered a priori - on the premise or precedence that “physics persistently only accepts unified theories, even though endlessly many empirically more successful disunified rivals are always available” (neatly expressed from a Pitt U research paper I found online, I am happy for the premise to be disproved), but I think the emergence of quantum and more speculative branches of physics now mitigate against that. 

Like I said, I’ll stick with art and logic, and maths.  Or maybe I could cite Thales - “Everything is full of gods” (iin my case, the gods of logic, art and maths).
Kalessin smile

 

 
lukefrmal
 
Avatar
 
 
lukefrmal
Total Posts:  19
Joined  21-08-2017
 
 
 
25 September 2017 20:01
 

Mathematics is just symbolism - two angels plus two angels = four angels, it works mathematically, math has absolutely no inherent tie to reality. Reality has patterns which can be represented mathematically, but so too can superstitions or anything else.

Regarding ‘quantum mechanics’ making up everything so popular quantum mechanics notions must have value, this is simply a wrong argument, it’s like saying that ‘energy’ makes up everything so whatever weird theories I come up with about energy must have value. Just because something is made up of smaller parts, does not mean that whatever you say the small parts behavior is, is true. Same story with using very shoddy equipment to get fragmented results, then extrapolate (ahem… simulate) your facts about quantum mechanics. Those popular quantum mechanic ideas are nonsense and do not match up with the data we can actually verify with a much higher degree of certainty. Sorry, but ‘weak’ evidence doesn’t trump ‘strong’ evidence, ever, just because it’s newer, cooler, or ‘more like the sci fi I like on TV’.

The reality is that randomness itself is structurally impossible, just like time travel, parallel universes, black holes, gods, ghosts, and the rest of the superstitious soup. These are all fallacies that share the same structural flaws as notions like free will - people do not think them through, do not analyze what they actually mean, so they remain these kinds of illusions that seem to have face value, but really stand on nonsensical foundations we have never proven exist. A good example is randomness, it simply has not been (and cannot be) modeled. We can create random number generators using a computer algorithm for example, which completely rely on non-random variables and (at their core) are not actually random results. We see for a fact that randomness is merely an illusion brought about by either complexity (so that we can’t see the pattern) or by not having all of the information necessary to see the pattern.

A very good ‘compass’ to if someone has no freaking clue what they are talking about is when they start saying something ‘just acts random’ because it ‘just does’ and it can have ‘multiple location simultaneously’. Quantum mechanics almost paints a picture of reality that is the opposite of reality - people think that is shocking and interesting, much like the notion of heaven/hell, neither belong in science, but sadly it has become popular to everyone, and now what excites everyone largely drives the scientific community.

Nature really is cool enough on its own, without superstitions, after all - the concepts of superstitions are all possible as derivatives of natural laws (humans thinking them is one example of their fruition/evolution). It just takes a little bit longer for each individual to be interested and excited about non-superstitious nature than any of the infinite superstitious variations or ‘add-ons’, which is why historically truth in physics hasn’t been the front-runner. We don’t even tend to need accurate physical models to exploit 99.999% of our current technology, all we need is trial and error, so now we have a society that believes whatever the scientific community comes up with because ‘look at how advanced my computer is, if we can build these, surely somebody in a labcoat out there understands physics and stuff, we so advanced!’ Sorry, no, we still don’t understand the WHY of physics - why gravity is the way it is, why magnetism is the way it is, and much of the how it all works together, or what it actually consists of. What we are good at is testing things and seeing useful patterns to exploit and create better technology, it does not mean we ‘understand’ the physics that compose that technology.

[ Edited: 25 September 2017 20:24 by lukefrmal]
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  4443
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
25 September 2017 20:23
 

I would rather say that physics represents the current threshold of human measurement and prediction at both the largest and smallest scales and not claim anything grander or more final than that. I don’t like making dogmatic or special-knowledge claims on behalf of science.

 
lukefrmal
 
Avatar
 
 
lukefrmal
Total Posts:  19
Joined  21-08-2017
 
 
 
25 September 2017 20:39
 

I think the original poster was complaining that generally even experts do not have a world view that is focused on a physical-world - probably because it’s not a natural thing to focus on when you’re studying to be a psychiatrist or whatever. He correctly surmised that physicists think about the physical world a lot more than other experts, but does not seem to realize that they bring illogical and irrational beliefs to their physical world view, just as a psychiatrist or some other person would. Being a physicist doesn’t necessarily prepare/train you to rationally scrutinize what you are reading or observing, because they are generally ignorant to their own biases. A kind of mixed approach is required where you learn about why humans behave the way they do at the same time you learn about why objects behave the way they do, then you can start connecting the dots about reality in a less biased manner, because at least you’re aware of the obvious illusions/traps. This is all assuming you aren’t too messed up when you start your endeavor with viruses like ‘im trying to find god but I’ll pretend to be objective because science says it’s good table manners’.

 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  16
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
26 September 2017 03:45
 

First off, Quantum Physics is nothing but science, as such it’s essentially supported by rigorous and repeated empirical evidences. And have been verified experimentally to a very high degree of accuracy, too.

That said, the fundamental aspects of quantum theory are still actively studied, since according to quantum theory and contrary to classical mechanics, we cannot make simultaneous predictions of conjugate variables, such as position and momentum, with arbitrary accuracy.
And,  assuming that most people here know what Mathematics is really all about, it has proven to be a very powerful tool for the physicists in order to give a fundamental and universal description of the physical world by means of probability theory. One striking aspect of the difference of our common approach to describe and recognise objective reality is that this approach presupposes that exact simultaneous values at one point in space-time can be assigned to physical quantities. Quantum mechanics deny this possibility. The best known example is the position and momentum of a particle. In so far, the more precisely the momentum (position) of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its position (momentum) is.

[ Edited: 26 September 2017 03:47 by Rick Robson]
 
lukefrmal
 
Avatar
 
 
lukefrmal
Total Posts:  19
Joined  21-08-2017
 
 
 
26 September 2017 05:23
 

Lol you say quantum physics have been verified experimentally to a high degree of accuracy, where is the proof? If you can’t see what goes on at a miniscule level, then no matter how many times you repeat an experiment trying to see what goes on at that scale, you will get the same result of ‘it appears random because we can’t see detail’. At one point in history, the movement of massive objects like the moon, our sun, and other stars seemed random too due to limited technology and understanding of that scale. The fact is their ‘quantum’ experiments don’t deliver scientific understanding, they have to extrapolate and ‘interpret’ the results to fit into a status-quo theory. It’s the same thing they did with dark energy - they invented it purely because they needed that variable at a massive scale to make sense of galactic rotation, which wasn’t working right with their model. It’s a simulation of fact ‘it must be there so that our current theory works’ rather than an admittance that ‘the current theory must be missing something, but we dare not assume it’s invisible energy or some other specific superstition’.  They can’t admit these things because they need to maintain the illusion in the public eye that they know a lot and don’t have to ‘start over’.

Regardless, minuscule and massive scale scientific tests are not done with ‘high accuracy’ relative to classical scales, due to the limits of technology.

You’re right that mathematics is a type of tool, a modeling tool, and as such it has no inherent truth in it. I could add the probability of a god particle, or a unicorn particle, to the universal model, which may or may not exist, and the math can work just fine if I make it complicated, and limit the results to modeling one specific thing at one specific scale (like Einstein did with relativity and the precession of Mercury, after which his ‘model’ has never been used to achieve anything ever again, including the myth of it being used by GPS - wrong, they use Newtonian physics).

I understand that ‘mathematics’ and ‘quantum physics’ and even general ‘physics’ are what a lot of people use as their authoritative information sources, so they don’t like thinking that maybe they aren’t as advanced and knowledgeable as they think they are, but it’s time to be humble and shatter your illusions rather than cling to your fairytale.

 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  128
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
26 September 2017 17:11
 
lukefrmal - 26 September 2017 05:23 AM

You’re right that mathematics is a type of tool, a modeling tool, and as such it has no inherent truth in it. I could add the probability of a god particle, or a unicorn particle, to the universal model, which may or may not exist, and the math can work just fine if I make it complicated, and limit the results to modeling one specific thing at one specific scale (like Einstein did with relativity and the precession of Mercury, after which his ‘model’ has never been used to achieve anything ever again, including the myth of it being used by GPS - wrong, they use Newtonian physics).

I understand that ‘mathematics’ and ‘quantum physics’ and even general ‘physics’ are what a lot of people use as their authoritative information sources, so they don’t like thinking that maybe they aren’t as advanced and knowledgeable as they think they are, but it’s time to be humble and shatter your illusions rather than cling to your fairytale.

Not sure.  Mathematics is not simply a “modeling tool” (what is it modelling?), if I had to generalise I would still call it an a priori analytic system as i did earlier.  Mathematical models can be used in empirical sciences, but - for example - Euclidean geometry does not depend on actual measurements being taken.  I wouldn’t consider it science in precisely the same way as physics, biology, chemistry are considered such, but that’s a semantic nuance. 

Equally, I don’t think mathematics is an “information source”, just as logic is not an information source.  To connect to “fairytales”, mathematics neither precludes nor necessitates a religious worldview, but it can provide axiomatic frameworks for assessing the validity of empirical (or other) claims.  Logic is also a priori and by definition does not allow for ‘independent’ validation (as per law of non-contradiction etc.).

I currently believe an understanding of logical fallacies is an excellent basis for most critical thinking and at least offers the possibility of avoiding or mitigating against most internal or external biases.  Understanding statistics and Bayesian probability is also a relevant part of any genuine attempt at objectivity and neutrality.

With these in mind the empirical sciences tend to offer a ‘least worst’ perspective on the material world and our relationship to it.  “Understanding” is an ongoing work in progress with a significant element of elasticity given all the variables, so I agree at least that humility and caution in language are often appropriate.  I’m with Matt Dillahunty that “knowing” is just a synonym for believing really strongly, and believing is (or should be) a Bayesian approach to the plausibility or demonstrability of any empirical claims.  Non-scientific (or anti-science) claims about the world often have one or more unfalsifiable element and are sometimes cloaked in logical fallacies - for example, “we can’t explain x, therefore y”.  I don’t think good science goes down this route, apart from perhaps allowing for speculative empirical hypotheses as a basis for research and testing .

[ Edited: 26 September 2017 17:13 by Kalessin]
 
lukefrmal
 
Avatar
 
 
lukefrmal
Total Posts:  19
Joined  21-08-2017
 
 
 
27 September 2017 18:27
 

Mathematical modelling is what Einstein did with relativity to model Mercury’s precession; he came up with some additional variable(s) because classical Newtonian physics wasn’t mathematically modelling mercury’s orbit (the part due to its exaggerated precession) accurately enough, so people surmised something was missing. Einstein tried to fill that gap with what he called relativity (specifically the bent space part). What he did not do however was make his model universally scalable, a model that that works at very small and very massive scales - his worked for just one relatively narrow scale of the universe. When a mathematical model only works at one narrow scale of the universe, it is an approximate system, and using its principles as fact is a huge mistake. It’s the same thing as if I shot a cannon ball a fixed distance, and I did not understand acceleration due to gravity yet, I could come up with various ‘approximate’ equations to predict how far the cannonball will go when certain variables like wind or force change slightly, since I already know the correct answer of how far a cannonball will go given approximate conditions, I can manipulate an equation to arrive at a very precise and correct answer for similar test cases even if I don’t use any factual element of acceleration due to gravity - because I don’t require my mathematical model to correctly predict shooting a cannonball very far or very near, just a narrow range, then my contrived formula using ‘bent space’ or ‘angels’ or any other superstition can work; within that fixed range. It’s a bullshit and useless model (like relativity), but since it gives a correct answer in a certain range of test cases, people swallow it as superior to models that correctly just have ‘unknown variables (forces or interactions)’ in them, because humanity hates unknowns.

[ Edited: 27 September 2017 18:33 by lukefrmal]
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
28 September 2017 13:59
 
lukefrmal - 27 September 2017 06:27 PM

Mathematical modelling >>snip<< because humanity hates unknowns.

The only thing you have shown with this post is your lack of understanding of Einstein’s General Relativity Theory.  In 1919, Einstein wrote, “The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible.”

It has been undergoing more and more refined testing for more than 100 years, and none of it (within the capabilities of our current level of technology) has been proven wrong.

 
 
dhave
 
Avatar
 
 
dhave
Total Posts:  194
Joined  25-09-2016
 
 
 
28 September 2017 15:45
 
lukefrmal - 26 September 2017 05:23 AM

Lol you say quantum physics have been verified experimentally to a high degree of accuracy, where is the proof?

It’s in your refrigerator, man, right next to the beer.  C’mon, pay attention.

You’re right that mathematics is a type of tool, a modeling tool, and as such it has no inherent truth in it.

Mathematics is a language used by all branches of science to describe with precision what happens when they shoot a cannonball at your castle.

Mathematics is beautiful.  In the beginning, God geometrized.  I mean, if God existed, she would definitely have geometrized before all the apple business.

Regards,
Dave.

 
 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  140
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
10 October 2017 23:13
 

“Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation.”
      Richard Feynman
=================
“Why nature is mathematical is, again, a mystery.”
        Richard Feynman
============================

[ Edited: 10 October 2017 23:25 by socratus]
 
 
A fat Bastard
 
Avatar
 
 
A fat Bastard
Total Posts:  26
Joined  26-08-2017
 
 
 
11 October 2017 07:51
 

Math is a way to describe physics. Physics do what it do, regardless of mathematics. Maybe we find some formula or recipe but if we don’t, the physics doesn’t change. It’s just following the laws of nature with no purpose or meaning or goal.

 
 
dhave
 
Avatar
 
 
dhave
Total Posts:  194
Joined  25-09-2016
 
 
 
11 October 2017 12:29
 
socratus - 10 October 2017 11:13 PM

“Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation.”
      Richard Feynman

That’s perfect, Richard all the way.  You know, he used to study in strip clubs.  What a guy.

So there is another division within physics worth mentioning.  Experimental physicists (e.g., Feynman) like to work with their hands, repair car engines, make bombs.  Theoretical physicists (e.g., Einstein) love math, they mostly think about things.  The two flavors tease each other but both are necessary.  Back when Bohr and those folks were irradiating each other, they would pull in mathematicians to come up with some kind of expression to describe what they were measuring in labs.  So the mathematicians look at the requirements and come up with this expression and say “try this”.  And then they have this precise formula to describe what they see and can explore it deeply now, make predictions, suggest further experiments to confirm its validity, quantum physics, voila.  Fun stuff.

Regards,
Dave.

 
 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  140
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
14 October 2017 00:28
 
dhave - 11 October 2017 12:29 PM
socratus - 10 October 2017 11:13 PM

“Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation.”
      Richard Feynman

That’s perfect, Richard all the way.  You know, he used to study in strip clubs.  What a guy.

So there is another division within physics worth mentioning.
Experimental physicists (e.g., Feynman) like to work with their hands, repair car engines, make bombs.
Theoretical physicists (e.g., Einstein) love math, they mostly think about things.
The two flavors tease each other but both are necessary.
  Back when Bohr and those folks were irradiating each other, they would pull in mathematicians
to come up with some kind of expression to describe what they were measuring in labs.
So the mathematicians look at the requirements and come up with this expression and say “try this”.
And then they have this precise formula to describe what they see and can explore it deeply now,
make predictions, suggest further experiments to confirm its validity, quantum physics, voila.  Fun stuff.

Regards,
Dave.

  a)  Let to take physics as a stone.
Then only making sex with math it is possible to create the beautiful
living planet Earth.
  b) Let to take math as an idea.
Then pure math for pure math is an abstract image - masturbation.
Only married with physics they can create the paradise planet Earth.

And if somebody cannot happily live on this paradise planet Earth -
- then it is his/her own problem.

Questions:
  a) where does stone come from ?
  b) where does idea come from?
My answer:
They both come from an infinite void, from an emptiness, from a nothingness,
from the zero vacuum continuum : T=0K.
====================================

 

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >