Is Mathematics the Language of the Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redsummers
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between mathematics and fundamental physics, questioning whether mathematics is merely a descriptive language or an intrinsic truth that exists independently. Participants express that mathematics serves as a powerful tool for modeling physical phenomena, emphasizing its role in identifying patterns. While some argue that mathematical models can be "true" based on their internal consistency, they acknowledge that the axioms used are subjective choices, which introduces uncertainty. The conversation references Gödel's incompleteness theorem, highlighting the limitations of mathematical systems. Additionally, the discussion touches on the nature of scientific theories, such as Newton's laws, suggesting that while newer theories like relativity may refine our understanding, older models still hold validity in specific contexts. Overall, the dialogue reflects a nuanced view of mathematics as both a constructed language and a means to approximate the complexities of the physical world.

What is mathematics?


  • Total voters
    8
Redsummers
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
I was just wondering what would be the general view concerning this topic. I think the poll is self explanatory, but what I am basically asking is Can fundamental physics be gleaned from promising mathematics? in other words, is Mathematics for you just a language which we use to describe the phenomena? or is it rather a language that has always existed wherein the truth can be achieved by its applications?

If you could also provide your opinion by supplementing a post on your view, would be great.

Note: the third option is for those who 'don't know and don't care' who may also think that asking such an existential question will lead us nowhere and hence it's pointless, which is obviously respectable as well.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mathematics is indeed a wonderful tool to describe the world around us. And it works as a language in which we can successfully render physics. However I like to think that mathematics is universal; the way in which we communicate does not alter what we are attempting to discover.
Just my opinion anyways...
 
Best description of maths I've seen is that it's the science of pattern. Exact models generate exact patterns. Then these can be measured for their fit against natural patterns.

The models can be "true" (crisply self-consistent in terms of their axioms) but their axioms are choices and so leave room for doubt. So maths is constructed, even if we feel it may have been constructed robustly and well.
 
apeiron said:
Best description of maths I've seen is that it's the science of pattern. Exact models generate exact patterns. Then these can be measured for their fit against natural patterns.

The models can be "true" (crisply self-consistent in terms of their axioms) but their axioms are choices and so leave room for doubt. So maths is constructed, even if we feel it may have been constructed robustly and well.

Yeah, indeed they leave room for doubt, Gödel himself wrote the incompleteness theorem. But I don't think that would matter much to Physics, when we think of how Physics is proven mathematically, we also see that it is just an approximation to the phenomenon. Like for instance, Newton's laws: could we say that they are disproved by relativity, since SR gives a more exact model to reality? Or is it also alright to say they work in that and that situations, while we don't have a complete theory to embrace all situations?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top