Do you think everything can be described mathematically?

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think you can describe anything mathematically. In essence it is a form of language, of metaphorical association. I don't think such descriptions are necessarily valid though, nor do I think that the mathematical description or consequences thereof, therefore corresponds with reality. At heart, mathematics is a human construct after all, and you can't even assume numerical associations between objects without applying or assuming some solution to the problem of universals, how one thing relates to another thing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you think everything can be described mathematically?

My answer to your question, Bro, will depend upon the extent to which you're using or not using the same kind of semantics that Lawrence Krauss uses when he refers to the term "nothing." As many of us have heard what Krauss does with the term "nothing," I'd have to know what you're doing with your use of the term, "Everything."

 

[dlamberth]

Do you think everything can be described mathematically?

No. Consciousness as an example.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Chaos theory? The future.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Godel's incompleteness theorem?

 

[Resha Caner]

Godel's incompleteness theorem?

That would indeed play a role.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not really. My engineering job involves incredibly complex machinery. 20-some years ago I cowrote a piece of technical software that modeled the first principles of those machines. People have since used it to model machines in ways that amaze even me. But because I was one of the authors, people assume I understand those machines better than I do. I wrote the software because the opposite is true. The software means I don't have to understand those machines, at least not to the lowest levels. And I don't believe anyone understands them at that fundamental level.

Still, they are being mathematically described.

You appear to contradict yourself. It is clear from what you write here that you did comprehend the machines mathematically. Now, did you understand the mathematical modelling of the machines done subsequently by others? If so, then my assertion stands, since you clearly had the mathematical competence to understand what the modelling said. If not, my assertion stands, since you clearly lacked the mathematical competence to understand what the modelling said.

 

[Resha Caner]

You appear to contradict yourself. It is clear from what you write here that you did comprehend the machines mathematically. Now, did you understand the mathematical modelling of the machines done subsequently by others? If so, then my assertion stands, since you clearly had the mathematical competence to understand what the modelling said. If not, my assertion stands, since you clearly lacked the mathematical competence to understand what the modelling said.

What I said was accurate. If you really want to argue it, the example would need to dive into much more detail.

My point was more the issues of capacity, correspondence, and certainty (I realized I actually did reference a 3rd C). Of those, the one that intrigues me the most is correspondence, which doesn't really pertain to the example I gave. It would require something different.

 

[Ophiolite]

What I said was accurate. If you really want to argue it, the example would need to dive into much more detail.

My point was more the issues of capacity, correspondence, and certainty (I realized I actually did reference a 3rd C). Of those, the one that intrigues me the most is correspondence, which doesn't really pertain to the example I gave. It would require something different.

The central point of the thread had all the appearance of being whether or not everything can be described mathematically. My response noted I thought that this was likely true, but that a necessary requirement was that to appreciate the mathematical description one must be technically competent in mathematics. You made an assertion contradicting this; I presented an argument that nullified that contradiction. Your response that what you said was accurate doesn't cut it for me.

 

[Resha Caner]

The central point of the thread had all the appearance of being whether or not everything can be described mathematically. My response noted I thought that this was likely true...

And I agreed, so not much more to say there. Therefore I expanded the scope.

...a necessary requirement was that to appreciate the mathematical description one must be technically competent in mathematics. You made an assertion contradicting this; I presented an argument that nullified that contradiction. Your response that what you said was accurate doesn't cut it for me.

Well, first, as I said, this particular aspect doesn't much interest me. I mentioned it only for completeness sake. I expected the idea that human capacity is limited would be non-controversial.

Second, though, you didn't make an argument. You simply made an assertion that differed from mine.

But, sigh, if you insist. Are you familiar with the Duffing equation and it's closed form solutions?