the role of mathematics in physics (and science)by William Nelso Tags: mathematics, physics, role, science 

#1
Jun2508, 12:06 AM

P: 9

Hi guys,
In my blog www.letstalkphysics.com I present an argument (pretty simple) that mathematics must be the foundation of any possible universe (as it certainly seems to be in ours). I wrote it because it seems that so many people, both mathematicians and physicists, not to mention laypeople, seem to think that it is a curious accident that our universe runs on math. I doubt it, but I am curious what some of the math aficionados here think! 



#2
Jun2508, 12:17 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,238

I think a fallacy in your argument is that the universe must have some set of rules. Why must this be so ? Why can't the universe just be a big set of rather arbitrary happenings (events), say, determined by the fancy will of some or other deity ? What excludes "magic" a priori ? Why can't the universe just be a dream ?




#3
Jun2508, 12:43 AM

P: 9

Note that you say "rather arbitrary", instead of "arbitrary". There is a big difference between "rather" arbitrary, which implies rules, and completely arbitrary, which is the case with no rules.
If you put yourself in the position of the creator of a universe, and attempt to further specify a set of "rather arbitrary" constraints, you will quickly find that it is impossible except by being completely precise (or at least, precisely probabilistic, as in quantum mechanics). And as for a "supernatural deity", it is the same thing. If such a being exists, it just means that our universe contains things we haven't seen yet. It doesn't change the need for rules, since without some constraints the deity could not even influence its own actions. How could it, since with no rules there can be no connection between the past and the present? Indeed, this may be a better way to make my argument (and it is also David Hume's argument). The present has to be constrained by the past, otherwise there can be no coherent sequence of events and no real universe. However, there is no middle ground between complete, mathematical constraints, and no constraints at all. It is simply impossible to write down any kind of "partial" constraints like the "rather arbitrary" rules you suggest above. The closest you can come is exact probabilities, as in quantum mech. 



#4
Jun2508, 01:49 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 3,273

the role of mathematics in physics (and science)
I think you can argue that even though completely chaotic universes might exist, with no physical laws ordering events within them, these would be inconsistent with the existence of life within them.
The reason that "our universe runs on math" would therefore seem to be anthropic in nature. Of course this begs the question about whether mathematics exists as some Platonic ideal, discovered by mathematicians, or whether it is a human construct. Garth 



#5
Jun2508, 08:53 AM

P: 15,325

It does not run on math; it runs on a few behaviours (such as electrons like to orbit protons and atoms like to absorb and emit photons) which, when repeated countless times, result in larger, emergent behaviours. Because the small behaviours and the large behaviours are so consistent across untold light years, we can use numbers to represent them.
i.e. the universe is entirely dervied from simple processes, and these processes are predictable ( = math ). 



#6
Jun2508, 08:32 PM

P: 9

It's difficult for me at least to picture the concept of "no physical laws". For example, is there a space with fixed dimension in which things happen? That is a law...
Can truly any event happen, e.g. universe turns into a potato, then Bart Simpson, then War and Peace wrapped on a torus? If not, then something is constraining the events, and those constraints are law of physics. What I claim is that by the time you are done specifying what events can occur and which cannot, you will have to define them in terms of mathematical constructs, for the simple reason that nothing else really can be defined. 



#7
Jun2508, 08:35 PM

P: 9

The source of these regular behaviors is their underlying mathematical basis.
Indeed, it is not even possible to define an atom or a proton on its own (consider all the intermediate states of partiallydestroyed atoms and protons). Only the underlying constituents, electrons and quarks and photons, have a definition, because they are fundamental mathematical objects within quantum field theory. 



#8
Jun2508, 09:08 PM

P: 15,325

The behaviours are due to the underlying physics of the objects. They operated just fine before humans came along and quantified them with mathematics. 



#9
Jun2508, 09:35 PM

P: 858

In my view, mathematics is just a way of describing quantities and relationships. OP should not confuse the map with the territory.




#10
Jun2508, 09:59 PM

P: 9

Can you express this "underlying physics" in some form other than mathematical? I would be interested to see it...and so would the Nobel Prize committee :) 



#11
Jun2508, 10:13 PM

P: 2,828

Platonists vs (?) constructivists : as far as I'm concerned, I was disappointed to face the impossibility of a discussion. Most people are convinced either way, and do not care about pure arguments in favor of one or the other way. I myself do not claim to be convinced either way, at least I am much more interested in hearing other people's arguments than trying to prove them wrong. 



#12
Jun2508, 10:39 PM

P: 15,325

As before, the universe got along just fine before math came along. * let's see: 1] For thousands of years, describing the underlying physics as the actions of gods or demons worked quite well. Granted, it is no longer sufficient for some of us (though not all of us), but you can't deny that gods and demons did explain why the sun chased the moon across the sky. 2] Aliens could easily describe our universe using a completely different structure. Granted, they wil have their own form of mathematics, but the point is, the language is just the tool for describing the underlying physics, and it doesn't much matter the details of the tool so long as it's complex enough. 



#13
Jun2508, 11:02 PM

P: 9

By "description" I mean of course a description in terms that you can define.
One can define an electron, using mathematics, but good luck defining a god or demon. As for "explanation", that is not the role of science. That is the role of fairy tales. 



#14
Jun2508, 11:58 PM

P: 1,520

There is a big assumption here: you're assuming that the Universe behaves rationally. There is no guarantee that the Universe follows the laws that govern the reason of men. The Universe is only describable mathematically if is indeed a model of a logical system; it may not be  we don't know.




#15
Jun2608, 05:47 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 3,273

Astrophysics provides plenty of evidence that the laws of physics discovered on Earth apply equally well across the observable universe, take as an example the precise pattern of spectral lines that identify specific elements in the spectra of distant stars.
These patterns are described mathematically, there is a numerical relationship between the wavelengths of separate lines in the absorption spectrum. These examples provide conclusive evidence that the observable universe behaves rationally. If it didn't it would not be possible to 'do' science at all. Garth 



#16
Jun2608, 05:55 AM

P: 104

Also, it doesn't make sense to say mathematics must be the foundation of any possible universe.....and this is because we don't know what is the origin of the universe.....and therefore we don't know what the foundation of the universe is. And....does maths tell where energy and matter actually came from? It doesn't. 



#17
Jun2608, 07:38 AM

P: 858





#18
Jun2608, 07:40 AM

P: 858




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Role of Instrumentation / Philosophy of Science  Biology  7  
Bee evaluates multimindednessits role in science  Beyond the Standard Model  0  
Science and Mathematics (heh)  General Discussion  4  
What role should "media ratings" play in science?  General Discussion  23  
The Central Role of Consciousness in Physics  General Discussion  78 