Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

So it seems fair to say that mathematics studies inconsistent systems, although it would be equivalent to say that it studies incomplete ones.

GUIDLINES FOR MATHEMATICAL STUDIES

Mathematics must make distinction between systems and formulate formal procedures for studying each type in isolation, and then finally state the fundamental relations between those sytems.

(1) OPEN SYSTEMS

A system is Mathematically Open if it is structurally and functionally open to change (It may be internally and externally reorganised to something completely different, or both its internal and external relations may be rendered fully dynamic.

(2) SEMI-CLOSED/SEMI-OPEN SYSTEMS

A sytem is mathematically semi-closed or semi-open if its possesses needs that are internally fulfilable (or self-fulfilled) and needs that are externally fulfilable. (I am making this definination as wide as possible to give every intellectual discipline access to it. Every discipline should be able to derive their own tighter but relevant definition from it)

(3) CLOSED SYSTEMS

A system is mathematically closed if its possess neither needs that are exteranlly fulfilable nor needs that are externally desireable. It stays structurally and functionally closed and completely disconnected from everything outside it.

A matheamatical study of an open system must describe:

a) How things and events are LINEARLY distributed, actioned and correlated

b) How Things and events are RANDOMLY distributed, actioned and correlated

c) How to reconcile SIMULTANEITY with SEQUENTIALISM interplaying in an open system.

d) And how structurally and functionally progressive things and events can be created from LINEARLY and RANDOMLY distributed, actioned and correlated things and events in an open sytem.

An open system can't be nonlinear or deterministic? Where do you get these ideas?

How true is the claim that everything in the whole universe can be explained by Physics and Physics alone? How realistic is this claim? Does our ability to mathematically describe physical things in spacetime give us sufficient grounds to admit or hold this claim? Or is there more to physical reality than a mere ability to matheamtically describe things?

Next, suppose the Lagrangian L has a symmetry, meaning that it doesn't change when you apply some one-parameter family of transformations sending q to some new position q(s).

Hi saviormachine,

Actually, you need a better handle, like a nickname or such ! I am very glad to hear you have some knowledge of symmetries. My interest concerns an aspect of symmetry very seldom brought to light. For the benefit of others, I will comment that the consequences of symmetry are fundamental to any study of mathematical physics. The relationship between symmetries and conserved quantities was laid out in detail through a theorem proved by Emmy Noether sometime around 1915. The essence of the proof can be found on John Baez's web site. This is fundamental physics accepted by everyone. The problem is that very few students think about the underpinnings of the circumstance but rather just learn to use it.

You will hear many professors simply state that "symmetry arguments are the most powerful arguments which can be made" without explaining what makes them so powerful. They usually give fairly simple examples and walk the student through, displaying the result as a self evident conclusion. These examples almost always begin with the phrase, "assume we have [such and such] symmetry". Notice the opening to John Baez's proof starts exactly the same way:
At least he tells you what he means by a symmetry. Symmetry is another of these things that is "understood" on an intuitive level without much thought.

What I would like to point out is that any symmetry is essentially an expression of a specific ignorance. For example, mirror symmetry means that there is no way to tell the difference between a given view of a problem and its mirror image: in effect you are in a state of enforced ignorance as to which view is being presented. Shift symmetry, the symmetry which yields conservation of momentum via Noether's theorem, arises if shifting the origin of your coordinate system has no impact on the nature of the problem: i.e., the information as to where the origin must be is unavailable to you. In a careful examination, every conceivable symmetry can be seen as a statement of some specific instance of ignorance.

The fundamental issue behind the power of symmetry arguments is the fact that information which is not available can not be produced by any algebraic procedure. It is a characteristic of mathematics that everything is deduced from a set of axioms; a proof amounts to a specific procedure which demonstrates that some piece of information is contained in a particular set of axioms. That being the case, how were we able to solve the problem above for specific expressions of q when changing q has no impact on the problem? The answer lies in Noether's theorem. There must be another relationship which relates the range of possibilities for q (the transformations Baez refers to) to the various specific solutions. In shift symmetry, this required relationship is conservation of momentum; in rotational symmetry, the required relationship is angular momentum.

The above can be seen as a means of obtaining information from ignorance. This is why it is called the most powerful argument which can be made. But let's think about that for a moment. Noether's theorem is a mathematical result and, as such, cannot produce anything which is not contained in the axioms. Ignorance cannot be the true source of our result; it must be arising from some other source. I will get into the real source of that result at a later date. For the moment, I want to get across the idea that symmetry is a form of ignorance. In many respects, Noether's theorem may be seen as a subtle result of conservation of ignorance.

There are about a half a dozen other fundamental observations (axioms ???) which I would like to get across before I step off into my proof.

Have fun -- Dick

"Evolution of matter" hardly does the process justice, which is exactly my point. I really can't think of any way to explain why one type of gene proliferates rather than another without reference to how its phenotypic expression fits into a certain environmental niche, can you? There are certainly equations in population genetics (Hardy-Weinberg comes to mind), but they are not physics equations. Even reducing evolutionary biology entirely to molecular biology causes us to lose crucial information. There are phenomena in the world that are just emergent, and cannot be comprehended entirely by an appeal to their lower-order constituent pieces. These are discussed frequently around here, the latest being autocatalytic processes in chemistry and the non-linear dynamics of complex systems.

I'm not going to look at your example of karma and ethics, because they don't concern me for the purposes of this thread. I'm just bringing up other sciences that cannot be reduced to physics.

The subjects of all the physical sciences are physical. All things physical are governed by the laws of physics. Two of the most basic princibles involved in all the physical subjects of scientific inquiry are efficiency and conservation. These two princibles apply to natural selection, evolution and all other observable phenomena. Correct me if I'm off here!

No, you're not off, but those two principles do not explain evolution. "Genes that result in phenotypes making an organism a better fit for whatever environmental niche it inhabits at any given time are selected for through differential reproductive success" better explains it.

There is also the problem of downward causation, a case of strong emergence, in which the parts of a system are constrained by the nature of the system, rather than the other way around.

A gene is modified by the trials and errors that are inherent in its interaction with the environment. The modifications take place during the sequence of the gene's production, reproduction and subsequent resulting generations. The outcome is that only those modifications will survive in the gene that produce a survival trait or have a benign influence on an organism. Any other modifications will result in the supression or elimination of the gene.

This reminds me of the way wind can wear away at sand leaving a natural sculpture of slightly compressed sand.

I am not sure if you are refering to everything as in everything including the past of the universe. Right now there is a possibility that physics might explain it. To boldly state that it can is something that is highly questionable.

Our own perception toward things in the universe may hinder our explanations.

If it includes the past, then if physics can prove that "something" can be produced by "nothing", then I would say yes it explains everything about the universe.

What you have called ignorance could also be called indifference.

It is not the case that there is an origin around here somewhere but we don't know where it is; rather we can put the origin wherever we like and it won't make any difference to the physics.

What I am talking about is the importance of creating methods of attack which will keep one's options open.

Well, even if physics is not making this claim itself, that's what the reductive activities tend towards. I been joining everyone and blindly debating with everyone up to this page without ever really thinking about the underlying value of 'reducing everything to physics', So, why? Well, there many good reasons for this:

Nanotechnology and the notion of Structural and functional Perfection. This is the claim that by rearranging atoms at the nano-structural level, we could improve the structural and functional qualities of things.

Genetic Engineering and the notion of structural perfection. This is the claim in biological science, which says that by genetically engineering things you can improve their structural and functional qualities. Eugenics or Race biology is a good example of this.

Costs naturally reduce if we know things and their relations to their finest details.

And so on. So, reductionism to the level of physics does have unigue intellectual and meterial advantages.

Yes, substantially so, but this does not rule out the possibility that we can explain and know things. It's just that some things naturally range over COP (Critical Observation Point). And I get very irritated when some scientists appear to abandon Logic at COP during routine observations and measurements in experiments. Yes, we are perceptually or visually limited, yet this is no licence for us to give up scientifically at points of difficulties.

I am intellectually allegic to the term 'nothing' as I currently believe it has no conncetion to 'reality' or 'something'.