On Nov 28, 1:18 am, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Dear Marc,
>
> > Physics deals with symmetries, forces and fields.
> > Mathematics deals with data types, relations and sets/categories.
>
> I'm no physicist, so please correct me but IMHO:
>
> Symmetries = relations
> Forces - could they not be seen as certain invariances, thus also
> relating to symmetries?
>
> Fields - the aggregate of forces on all spacetime "points" - do not see
> why this should not be mathematical relation?
>
> > The mathemtical entities are informational.  The physical properties
> > are geometric.  Geometric properties cannot be derived from
> > informational properties.
>
> Why not? Do you have a counterexample?
>
> Regards,
> Günther
>

Don't get me wrong.  I don't doubt that all physical things can be
*described* by mathematics.  But this alone does not establish that
physical things *are* mathematical.  As I understand it, for the
examples you've given, what happens is that based on emprical
observation, certain primatives of geometry and symmetry are *attached
to* (connected with) mathematical relations, numbers etc which
successfully *describe/predict* these physical properties.  But it
does not follow from this, that the mathematical relations/numbers
*are* the geometric properties/symmetrics.

In order to show that the physical properties *are* the mathematical
properties (and not just described by or connected to the physical
properties), it has to be shown how geometric/physical properties
emerge from/are logically derived from sets/categories/numbers alone.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to