Is Math Just Another Language Used in Science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jk22
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the relationship between mathematics and science, questioning whether mathematics can be considered a science in its own right, particularly in the context of experimental verification and its application to physical reality. Participants examine the philosophical implications of mathematical systems and their consistency, as well as the role of mathematics in describing and predicting scientific phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that mathematics, like the Poincaré conjecture, cannot be experimentally verified and question whether such mathematics should be considered scientific.
  • Others propose that mathematics is a form of applied logic with self-established rules, likening it to games or art rather than a direct reflection of physical reality.
  • There is a viewpoint that while mathematics is used to describe and predict physical reality, its philosophical implications are complex, as there is no guarantee that mathematical structures accurately reflect reality.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the notion that the relationship between mathematics and reality is "philosophically astonishing," citing historical examples where mathematical models did not align with observed reality.
  • Another participant notes the distinction between mathematical hypotheses and scientific theories, emphasizing that mathematical proofs are necessary for validation, unlike scientific theories which rely on empirical evidence.
  • Some contributions highlight the intertwined nature of mathematics and science, suggesting that scientific observations can influence the development of mathematical models and vice versa.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of mathematics in relation to science, with no clear consensus reached. Some agree on the importance of internal consistency in mathematics, while others emphasize the necessity of empirical validation in science.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying assumptions about the definitions of science and mathematics, as well as the implications of mathematical models in relation to physical reality. Some participants acknowledge the limitations of current mathematical frameworks in addressing both large-scale and small-scale scientific phenomena.

jk22
Messages
732
Reaction score
25
If we consider for example the result about Poincaré conjecture, treating a 3-sphere, one cannot 'experiment' about this, since we have no access to the 4th dimension.

In this sense can we consider math as a science like physics, where experiments are used to verify a theory ?

On the other hand math seems to come from the experiment, for example counting.

Do some of you consider math result that are not verifiable by experiments as non-scientific ? :

Wikipedia about evolutionism vs creationism :

In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science.
—National Academy of Sciences
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, I'd rather say maths is apllied logic, in which a particular system logic has been chosen, along with objects we may manipulate according to allowable operations.

Essentially, maths is more to liken to games or art, with self-established rules, with the study of the then allowable configurations being the area of research.
 
I agree w/ arildno. As long as things are internally consistent, a math system works just fine with no reference to physical reality. Other sciences are about physical reality, so no, they are not the same at all.
 
maths are used to describe and predict physical reality; it is in some sense philosophically astonishing that this is possible since we have no reason to think that the math we have have the right structure to coincide with reality.
 
jk22 said:
maths are used to describe and predict physical reality

Yeah, the boring kind.
 
you mean physics is boring i found bells inequality is quite interesting as a prediction
 
jk22 said:
maths are used to describe and predict physical reality; it is in some sense philosophically astonishing that this is possible since we have no reason to think that the math we have have the right structure to coincide with reality.

I'm not convinced about that. It's only "philosophically astonishing" if you want to be astonished by it. For example back in the early 19th century, people would have been astonished to find out that Newtonian mechanics didn't match "reality" at all in some situations. You could caricature the situation by saying "if the math suddenly stops matching reality, you just fix the problem by inventing more math".

And as an engineer, there is nothing at astonishing in finding that nice mathematics doesn't match reality very well - it happens to me every day!
 
i couldn't stand having to do heavy math everyday, I am an amateur but i think i'll stop this hobby soon. I would say As 1milecrash said it is boring and if not then too complicated.
 
"Is math like other sciences?"
Not quite.
Were a hypothesis exists in math, and by calculation (experimentally predictable) might show such is possibly true, it will remain hypothetical until proven.

Most science does not have the ability to prove true for all. It becomes theory when it becomes experimentally predictable, and the results follow the hypothesis.

It is this ideas of proof that does seem to separate Mathematics from the other philosophy.
 
  • #10
Mathematics is often described as the "language" of science; just as language can be used to write fiction and non-fiction, so can mathematics be used to describe realistic and unrealistic logical systems.

The role of scientific observation is to determine how well different mathematical models conform to reality, and thus which one best describes our universe (or parts thereof).

It is fascinating that our mathematical models for describing scientific observations at very large (General relativity) and very small (Quantum Physics) scales are fundamentally incompatible. No one yet has figured out a mathematical model that can describe both.

Sometimes we have to use science to choose which mathematical model best conforms to reality. Sometimes we need to develop new mathematics to explain scientific observations. Whatever differences may exist between mathematics and science, they are completely intertwined.

Claude.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
9K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
8K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K