Maths vs Physics

[GrowingSmaller]

Which is more fundamental? There is the thesis that the truth of math is indispensible for the truth of physics, and then thereis the idea that we get our concept of number from the sensory, physical world.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Surely without maths you can't have physics.

 

[variant]

Which is more fundamental? There is the thesis that the truth of math is indispensible for the truth of physics, and then thereis the idea that we get our concept of number from the sensory, physical world.

Math is a subjective description of quantity and relationships between quantities, and physics are a subjective description of material interaction.

What is fundamental is the universe which is objective.

I believe that quantity doesn't objectively exist in the universe without subjective interpretation, and that descriptions of material interactions also require subjectivity so there is nothing fundamental about either set of descriptions.

In essence, without a mind, the universe is unbounded.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Surely without maths you can't have physics.

Well you can know the physical without knowing maths. Whether you can know physics (truths of physical science) is I suppose another issue.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Math is a subjective description of quantity and relationships between quantities, and physics are a subjective description of material interaction.

What is fundamental is the universe which is objective.

I believe that quantity doesn't objectively exist in the universe without subjective interpretation, and that descriptions of material interactions also require subjectivity so there is nothing fundamental about either set of descriptions.

In essence, without a mind, the universe is unbounded.

So, would you say that it is not objectively more true that Earth is the third planet, as opposed to the eighth planet? Or are no accounts more approximately true than others?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Which is more fundamental? There is the thesis that the truth of math is indispensible for the truth of physics, and then thereis the idea that we get our concept of number from the sensory, physical world.

I think that math is indispensible for conceptualizing principles of physics, but I don't think that mathematics hides inside of physical objects. Rather, physical objects are amenable to counting and measuring by a mind capable of abstract thought.

I think we get our concepts of mathematics from experience, and they are an implication of our powers of abstraction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that math is indispensible for conceptualizing principles of physics, but I don't think that mathematics hides inside of physical objects. Rather, physical objects are amenable to counting and measuring by a mind capable of abstract thought.

I think we get our concepts of mathematics from experience, and they are an implication of our powers of abstraction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But what about the indispensibility thesis thing (was it Quine?). If maths deos not refer us to facts, then physics that depends on maths cannot be true of the factual world.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But what about the indispensibility thesis thing (was it Quine?). If maths deos not refer us to facts, then physics that depends on maths cannot be true of the factual world.

Math can be used to describe or model reality, but math does not hide inside of reality any more than the word "blue" hides inside of the sky.

The reason that math can be used in this way is that we are capable of abstract thought. We can draw lines in the air and divide reality up into entities of our choosing.

Where we draw the lines is a matter of choice. The Milky Way can be an entity. So can the Solar System. So can the Earth. So can a city. So can one's home. So can one's computer. So can the CPU of one's computer. So can an atom in that CPU.

Because we've divided up the universe in a way that is finite, we can take measurements, e.g., of length, width, and depth. We can measure the distance between entities. Since we can conceptualize time, we can also measure velocity, acceleration, etc.

Not only can we divide up reality, we can group entities by similarities, and exclude entities from the group by differences. Grouping allows us to count members of the group.

Because of our cognitive abilities, we are able to measure and count. This is, of course, useful for understanding reality. But not because math hides inside of the universe, but because math can be used to describe or model the universe. It is our way of keeping track of relationships in our conceptual subdivisions of the universe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[variant]

So, would you say that it is not objectively more true that Earth is the third planet, as opposed to the eighth planet? Or are no accounts more approximately true than others?

It is more true from the standpoint that one can understand boundaries like "planets" and "numbers", once you start "accounting" the universe is bounded because you added a mind and definition and systematic preception.

The universe is fundimentally unbound and indefinite, any and all instances of preception require a boundary, which requires a mind (but not consciousness interestingly enough).

Neither math nor physics are fundimental to the universe, they are descriptions of the universe, by minds.

 

[Markus6]

Physics without Maths is blind and Maths without Physics is lame.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Physics without Maths is blind and Maths without Physics is lame.

Lol.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So, what is the relation between the theoory and ultimate reality. A "modelling" relation? Interestingly or not, I see perception as a model.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, what is the relation between the theory and ultimate reality.

What is the relationship between an architect's blueprint and a building?

The relation, as I see it, is that one's mental model is a reflection of inter-relating aspects of existence. If, for instance, two entities that we mentally partition from reality are physically related by relative location (i.e., "distance"), we are entitled to relate them to each other mentally, and most likely in terms of some convenient countable units of our devising.

The units don't exist in reality. If two entities are one meter apart, that doesn't mean that "one meter" exists intrinsically within things. However, the relationship that we are attempting to describe is real. The two objects are separated (according to our partitioning) by a certain distance that we conceptualize as "1" "meter".

We can use abstract thought and mathematical methods to simplify and deal with real-world relationships. The relationships within our mental model relate to relationships within reality, and largely through massive simplification by abstracting out needless details.

A "modelling" relation? Interestingly or not, I see perception as a model.

I'm not a representationalist, but no doubt the brain does do some processing on perceptual information before we become aware of that in perception.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Upisoft]

So, what is the relation between the theoory and ultimate reality. A "modelling" relation? Interestingly or not, I see perception as a model.

It seems logical. Perception is imperfect modeling of our senses, sensing the reality. Theory is imperfect modeling of scientific observations made by some kind of apparatus that converts the observation data in directly observable data.

 

[ug333]

Math and physics are two halves of the same whole. They are equals, IMHO.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Math and physics are two halves of the same whole. They are equals, IMHO.

Equals in what sense?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ug333]

Equals in what sense?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Equal in how "fundamental" they are. I wouldn't say math is built on physics, or physics is built on math. I would say they are indivisible, and they are both built up on each other.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Equal in how "fundamental" they are. I wouldn't say math is built on physics, or physics is built on math. I would say they are indivisible, and they are both built up on each other.

Hum. That's an interesting thought. You have a point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Equal in how "fundamental" they are. I wouldn't say math is built on physics, or physics is built on math. I would say they are indivisible, and they are both built up on each other.

Math is an incomplete logical vocabulary used to model the physical universe. Physics is a term we use to refer to a set of models.

 

[Sphinx777]

Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns, formulate new conjectures, and establish truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.

There is debate over whether mathematical objects such as numbers and points exist naturally or are human creations. The mathematician Benjamin Peirce called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions". Albert Einstein, on the other hand, stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Through the use of abstraction and logical reasoning, mathematics evolved from counting, calculation, measurement, and the systematic study of the shapes and motions of physical objects. Practical mathematics has been a human activity for as far back as written records exist. Rigorous arguments first appeared in Greek mathematics, most notably in Euclid's Elements. Mathematics continued to develop, for example in China in 300 BC, in India in AD 100, and in the Muslim world in AD 800, until the Renaissance, when mathematical innovations interacting with new scientific discoveries led to a rapid increase in the rate of mathematical discovery that continues to the present day.

Mathematics is used throughout the world as an essential tool in many fields, including natural science, engineering, medicine, and the social sciences. Applied mathematics, the branch of mathematics concerned with application of mathematical knowledge to other fields, inspires and makes use of new mathematical discoveries and sometimes leads to the development of entirely new mathematical disciplines, such as statistics and game theory. Mathematicians also engage in pure mathematics, or mathematics for its own sake, without having any application in mind, although practical applications for what began as pure mathematics are often discovered.

​