I am bowing out of this conversation. Obviously from many examples, Brent thinks that we "invent" maths whenever we work out something like elliptical orbits result from an inverse square law. This is an incorrect use of "invent", IMHO, or it's at best using it in the sense that whoever it was invented the telephone -- that is, they discovered that physics allowed certain things to be possible. It's the same with maths, we discover what the inverse square law does, if we could invent it - in the normal sense of the word - then the planets could travel in squares if we decided they could.
Anyway since this appears to be an argument about the meaning of words, it isn't of any interest. On 21 May 2014 03:21, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Monday, May 19, 2014 2:13:31 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote: > >> On 5/18/2014 5:40 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 17 May 2014 10:06, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I apologize >> for my LATE REPLY. >> You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it were >> REALISM >> indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I consider >> it a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at >> our present level. >> Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., it does >> not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present >> knowledge. >> Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so >> wherever you look you find it in the books. >> >> >> I assume the implication of what you're saying here is that the reason >> physics appears mathematical is because that's the way we think. I suspect >> most physicists would say the opposite - that we think that way because >> that's how nature works (or at least that's how it appears to work so far). >> If one is going to take the position that maths is a human invention, then >> one has the hard problem of explaining why maths is so "unreasonably >> effective" in physics while no other system of thought comes close. >> >> >> Not at all. A lot of math was invented to describe theories of physics. >> If you have some idea of how the world is, e.g. it consists of persistent >> identifiable objects, or all matter pulls on other matter; And you want to >> work out the consequences of the idea and make it precise with no >> inconsistencies - you've invented some math (unless you can apply some >> that's already invented - see Norm Levitt's quip). >> > > A question from me would be, are you in the 'shadows' paradigm here the > most, or are you in the other one you recently said didn't end to get > anywhere because starting with a big question and a small amount to say, > was a lot more likely to stay exactly the same or get worse. Which no one > would be able to agree about either, but I think a reasonable measure is > whether, the same basic ainstarting point persistently showed up regardless > of what was regarded as theoretical advances. In...like you and Liz her . I > should think the basic positions and starting point were more or less the > same 50 years ago. They might have changed in frequency in the population, > and there might be large camps that regard the matter as settled and large > theories. But does any of it nail the other position? Doesn't look like it > here. > > So I guess why would you choose this sort of approach at all...if it's > against what you said could work, and it's almost immediately apparently > there is nothing happening strong enough to make a difference that will > actually throw out every or any of the other possibilities. So it's all > going to be the same once you've had enough and gone off to look for > something else to do. > > Shouldn't we be more thinking what looking to the shadows might translate > to for this question? > > Just wondering. E.g. irrational numbers...they don't look like something > we'd want to invent or anything like human ideas for order. They are also > ..possibly always the kind of number that most objectively we can do, have > an importance to nature herself. Irrational numbers. Always. > > So, one question would be, is it more reason to assume a very large > importance to this kind of concept, with fundamental depths, due to the > fact it's always the same properties, yet very different positions and > signifances in nature. Yet.....something we've learned from mathematics is > many of these irrational numbers that may have distant - apparently - > signifances in nature, are not only closely relation, but can be translated > into eachother. Can be defined in terms of each other. > > And funnily enough, where this happens in maths also happen to be density > points for basically all the concepts and formulas also most hard bound > into....not physical law theory deriving and typically universal in > nature more like a principle, but physical law empirically deriving and > typically universal in another way at the other end of some spectrum, where > its about ubiquity. Like Sin, Cos, translates of that to Euler...which does > include a zero and a one but.....the thing is, this is zero and one, when > it's part of a scheme in cyclicity. > > It's really where these density clusters are, that your idea that maths is > invented for usefulness is weakest. Because...things like, if the physical > laws of this universe are one of many possible...is maths changed > alongside? If it isn't, then now...you seem to have universality for maths, > and parochialism for physical law. But if it's the other way around, then > is math parochial? Because if it is, then now we've the anthropic principle > for maths and not physical law. > > Or is this as simple as you say, physical is what it is, and we invented > maths to contend with it. But physical law *is* tied in closely with > irrational numbers. And they are tied in very tightly to these density > alclusters. And they are very hard to vary...and represent a large amount > of ubiquously repeating themes in nature. Which are hard tied to physical > law. So are we talking then, about a coincidence, where we get to be the > lucky one's that a universe with physical laws, that happened to be > mirrored in a logical set of relations.....with a direct translation to > concepts the human mind could symbolically capture, and eventually > represent in codified form. > > I mean, with that kind of tight interlocking...it's not the sort thing > that would be possible to invent differently for a different set of > physical laws...unless that also changed other linkages across to humans > and their cognitions as well. But if does do that, math is part of the same > fundamental structure. Not as it looks, because translations have taken > place through very different dimensionalities. But must be the same > essential properties preserved constant, because from the human cognition > worldsense, it isn't necessary to go back the same way to objective....but > can be reached a second route, involving few enough steps that our senses, > like our eyes and spatial awareness can fairly much look at the sky and see > it. > n > > One shadows approachh would be to assume the relations and structures with > the property of becoming more core, more fundamental the nearer to the peak > densities at the heart of those density spots, are the parts of maths that > more fundamental and linked to nature, while in the other direction it's > becoming less so, and much more toward the human condititn and worldsense > and the kinds of things that seem pretty important to us or we find we need > to do a lot. > > I tell you my speculative prediction is. Irrational numbers will be > defined in terms of each other...such that those long numbers make a lot > more sense taken together adjusted for the right dimensional translations > within a convergence based schema. Because we can already see that they are > converged at those density. Pi..e...I mean...yeah from distant physical > positions they get really close...so a reasonable shot is toa say, map > those density cores...find a sort of dimensionality for them...that you can > derive conditions at peak density.....maybe that's where the convergence > peaks too > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
