Tom Mattson said:
I was wondering what made you think the statement,
"Mathematical existence equals physical existence,"
was true in the first place.
Since mathematical existence is defined by David Hilbert as
"freedom from contradiction" It holds that,
if, mathematical existence is equal to physical existence, then physical existence is also freedom from contradiction. That is to say, physical phenomena[
events] are constrained by an intrinsic, logical self-consistency.
Tom Mattson said:
Yes, observation is not a mathematical process.
Observation[in the sense of empiricism/scientific method] is
NOT self contradictory,
if, physical existence is "freedom from contradiction".
Ergo, it follows that your statement:
"observation is not a mathematical process" is
false.
Tom Mattson said:
Then why do you respond to comments with quotes and links that have no relevance to the discussion? Why not just post an argument? If you are here to devlop a theory, you don't seem to be trying very hard.
This appears to be your personal,
biased opinion? Elitism? Feigned ignorance? The quotes and links ARE relevant to the discussion.
Tom Mattson said:
He probably did. So what? It still doesn't mean that physics would not exist without mathematics.
[1.] Physics would not exist without an ability to
describe phenomena.
[2.] The description of phenomena must be logically consistent[free of contradiction].
[3.] Mathematical existence is defined as freedom from contradiction.
[4.] Mathematics describes phenomena.
Therefore
Physics would not exist without mathematics.
Tom Mattson said:
A belief is nothing other than a hypothesis that is held to be true, without any evidence.
If the hypothesis cannot be tested, then what good is it?
Tom Mattson said:
I feel compelled to echo Matt's earlier thought: When you have figured out what it is you want to prove, let us know.
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
If the universe includes all that is real and excludes that which is not real, then the universe is the "universal set".
Background Independence:
The description of any entity inside the real universe can only be
with reference to other things in the universe. Space is then
relational, and the universe, self referential. For example, if an
object has a momentum, that momentum can only be explained with
respect to another object within the universe. Space then becomes an
aspect of the relationships between things in reality.
Physicist Lee Smolin says that space becomes analogous to a sentence, and it is absurd to say that a sentence has no words in it. So the grammatical structure of each sentence[space] is defined by the relationships that hold between the words in it.
For example, relationships like object-subject or adjective-noun. So
there are many different grammatical structures composed of different
arrangements of words, and the varied relationships between them.
If the universe is closed, the "information" or entangled quantum
states cannot leak out of the closed system. So the density of
entangled quantum states, continually increases, as the entropy must
always increase. While to us, it is interpreted as entropy or lost
information, it is actually recombined information, to the universe.
Shannon entropy.
Since entropy can also be defined as the number of states within a
region of space, and the entropy of the universe must always
increase, the next logical step is to realize that the spacetime
density, i.e. the information encoded within a circumscribed region
of space, must be increasing in the thermodynamic direction of time.
The entropy of thermodynamics and entropy of Shannon, are equivalent
concepts, because the number of arrangements that are counted by
Boltzmann entropy reflects the amount of Shannon information needed
to implement any particular combination, or arrangement. The two
entropies also appear to have superficial differences.
Thermodynamic entropy is interpreted in units of energy divided by
temperature, while, the Shannon entropy is interpreted in terms of
dimensionless bits. This seems to point towards a computational/language structure for reality.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle follows directly from the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality for scalar products. By quantizing spacetime geometry, it seems that the wavefunctions/waveforms aren't based on a background space. The wavefunction space, can be thought of as the space of square-
integrable wavefunctions over classical configuration space. Geometric quantization can be constructed, via fiber bundles.