On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only other >> worlds do, >> > > > ? > !
>> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the only >> way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds. >> > > > Indeed, > Then why the "?" ? > You know positivist physicians still alive? Who? > Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave; none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists want to do, figure out how the world works. > In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different > theories are equivalent, > Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they both tell a story with a identical plot they just use different symbols in the vocabulary of mathematics to do so, just as 2 books about World War 2 tell the same story but use different symbols in the vocabulary of the English language to do it; however neither book about World War 2, no matter how good, is World War 2. I said it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we should take seriously and think through the implications of what mathematicians have been saying for years, mathematics is a language. > but that does not make the thing described into a convention or language. > True. A electron is not a convention or a language, but what about a description of the electron written in a particular dialect of the language of mathematics, like the Schrodinger Wave Equation? Yes Schrodinger's Equation does a good job describing the behavior of a electron, but Dirac's Equation does better, and Feynman's sum over histories even better. And some equations do a terrible job describing the electron even though the are grammatically correct sentences in the language of mathematics, that is to say they are logically self consistent. So maybe you can not only write true descriptions of the electron in the language of mathematics maybe you can also write the equivalent of a Harry Potter novel in the language of mathematics. Maybe Cantor's infinities and the Real Numbers are mathematical Harry Potter novels. Actually I kinda doubt it but maybe. > On the contrary, it points on something real beyond the language. > But that's exactly what I was getting at, maybe it points to something real beyond the mathematics. I don't insist that is true, maybe mathematics is more than just a language, but maybe not, I believe it's worth thinking about. Unlike philosophers who are always certain but seldom correct I just don't know. John K Clark -- 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.
