On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 6:57:31 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 6:26:17 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 31 Aug 2019, at 16:01, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> I've decided that in the matter vs. math debate, to conclude that there >> is no debate, if one just says that a study of math is just a study of >> matter, and nothing more. >> >> >> >> This will only obscure the difference between math and physics. But those >> science does not study the same things. Mathematics studies abstract >> relations, which are out of the category of space, time, and physical >> things. Physics is a theory of observable predictions. >> >> With mechanism, physics becomes a very special branch of machine >> theology, which is itself a very special branch of mathematical logic >> (itself a very special branch of mathematics). >> >> >> >> >> https://twitter.com/philipthrift/status/1167548170714386433 >> >> .. >> Jussi Jylkkä @JylkkaJussi >> >> It’s partly terminology, why couldn’t it be that pain is a mathematical >> structure. If mathematical things are concrete, then how can we be sure >> what those things are really like? >> >> >> >> In mathematics (as opposed to metaphysics and theology) we don’t care on >> the nature of things. We only reason from axioms that we share on some >> intuition that we have. Nobody knows, or even try to know, what is a >> number, or what is a set, but we do agree on some of their properties. >> >> When interested in the nature of things, we still have to accept primary >> things and primary laws between those things to account of the “other >> things”. >> >> Physics studies the physical reality. >> Math studies the mathematical reality. >> Metaphysics/theology studies the nature of Reality, and tackle the >> fundamental question “Is Reality Mathematical, or Physical, or theological >> or mental, etc.” and this without deciding the answer in advance, and >> trying to get observable consequences, so that the metaphysics can be >> improved/refuted. >> >> It is a just a bad habit that we use dogma in metaphysics (since long). >> >> The truth is that we don’t know, but there too we can build theories and >> test them. >> >> Somehow, since QM’s foundational problem, physics begin to handle >> metaphysical question, and to have to decide (even if momentarily) on some >> philosophical principles, like Mechanism (cf Everett) or non Mechanism (cf >> Bohr, von Neumann, Wigner, etc.). >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> > Even if mathematical physics only ranges over a subset of mathematics > > > https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation > > > but mathematics by itself can range over all mathematical-fictional > worlds, it is still (so far, until AIs take their place) only human brains > that have fabricated those worlds (in writing!). > > @philipthrift >
Related question: Is there any mathematics that exists in some mathematician's brain that she cannot write in a paper (or on a blackboard)? @philipthrift -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/00f4990f-7a0a-48c2-bef3-f6f5dcb51daf%40googlegroups.com.
