B Non-deterministic Hidden variables that can't be described by math

[Blue Scallop]

If it is true that the different QM interpretations all make the same experimental predictions, because they all use the same underlying math of QM. That's why they are called "interpretations" instead of "different theories" then it is a fool's errand to keep searching for interpretations to explain future new experimental data, when we can just focus on the math and work from there. But I need to know the following:

1. Are there hidden variables that can no longer be described by math? Why not?

2. As long as that something can affect the physical.. then it should be described by math, right? Is there a foolproof proof of this?

3. In the history of physics.. are there something where it can't be described solely by math? But then love, desire, poetry.. can this still be described by math? This is not a philosophical question but just looking for that foolproof axiom where everything can really be described by math. I don't like philosophy. I only like hard empirical data and theories and experimental evidences.

 

[andrewkirk]

In the history of physics.. are there something where it can't be described solely by math?

As Deep Thought said when people complained about the opacity of its answer ('42') to the question 'What is the Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything', I think the problem here might be that you are not really sure what the question is. ie, what exactly does it mean for something to be 'described by math'.

I am reminded of a - possibly apocryphal - story of some esteemed physics prof who, constantly asked by students about a theory that explained everything, went to the board and wrote the single numeral '1'.

Poetry, music and other arts express things that we do not have explicit mathematical ways of expressing. But in general they do not describe. Not all human communication has to be description. Indeed, I suspect that very little of it is.

 

[PeterDonis]

This is not a philosophical question

It sure looks like one.

just looking for that foolproof axiom where everything can really be described by math

There isn't one.

 

[PeterDonis]

@Blue Scallop your questions don't look like questions about physics, so they don't look like they are on topic here. Accordingly, I am closing the thread. If you want to ask a question about physics, it needs to be about physics--either some concrete physical theory, or some concrete experimental result. Asking a question like "are there hidden variables that can no longer be described by math?" is either asking about all possible theories, which is pointless since nobody knows all possible theories, or mistaking objects in a theory, hidden variables, for things in reality. Either way it's not a question about physics. Similarly, asking for a "foolproof proof" of anything means you can't be asking about physics, because there are no foolproof proofs in physics; there are only theories and experiments and comparing them to see which theories work better.