The problem with Mathematics in Physics

[Astronuc]

According to the Oxford dictionary, 'physics' originates from the late 15th century (denoting natural science in general, especially the Aristotelian system): plural of obsolete physics ‘physical (thing’), suggested by Latin physica, Greek phusika ‘natural things’ from phusis ‘nature’. See attached figure.

Natural philosophy or philosophy of nature (from Latin philosophia naturalis) was the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natphil-ren/

Mathematics is a necessary tool with which we quantify various elements of physics in a broad range of systems from the Universe we can see to the smallest part of the universe. The mathematics allows us to build models and make predictions, and perform experiments and measurements, from which we confirm a theory or prediction, or perhaps find we need to make adjustments/corrections due to other effects. We find that there are many cases where we make reasonable good predictions considering the complexity of what we are studying, or manipulating.

Besides the pure (theoretical) physics, there is applied physics, and the mathematics allows us to construct tools and systems that enable us to do many things were would not otherwise be able to do.

I'll leave the speculation of 'why' to the philosophers, because ultimately, outside of speculation, there is no definitive 'why', or reason. Sometimes the answer is, "that's simply the way the universe is", and we are not about to change it.

 

[anorlunda]

Newton’s 2nd law again becomes a definition.

But isn't it just a circular relationship between f, m and a? Nothing per se in the relationship that says one is the defining quantity and another is the defined one. That shouldn't cause a problem unless you see it as defining a quantity, and then expecting the quantity to prove the validity of the 2nd law. That would be circular logic .

We have other ways to prove the 2nd law. The Euler Lagrange equation for example. But so what? It doesn't influence our discussion in this thread.

We started this sub-thread talking about students. I still like the mass spectrograph as a way to make the students think. It measures something; not weight because the mass spectrograph works in 0 G. What is the thing that it measures? Students don't need the 2nd law to conceptualize mass. Next lesson would be to replay the practice session scenes from the movie Ender's Game. The students are smart, they'll see right away the significance of mass in 0G.

 

[Dale]

Nothing per se in the relationship that says one is the defining quantity and another is the defined one.

Of course not. You are free to define all three quantities as you like. You can define them each independently and test Newton’s 2nd law, or you can define any two of them independently and use Newton’s 2nd law to define the third. All of those can be done self consistently.

That shouldn't cause a problem unless you see it as defining a quantity, and then expecting the quantity to prove the validity of the 2nd law. That would be circular logic .

If Newton’s 2nd law is a definition then it is true by definition. That is not circular, but it is a tautology.

We started this sub-thread talking about students. I still like the mass spectrograph as a way to make the students think. It measures something; not weight because the mass spectrograph works in 0 G.

I have no objection to the mass spectrograph nor to your position. It is perfectly valid. I just think that it is reasonable to recognize that @Office_Shredder also has a perfectly valid position. They are different, but neither is wrong.

 

[Sophrosyne]

One of my favorites, Leonard Susskind, likes to say that physicists are not interested in truths, they are interested in things that are useful.

Useful to make predictions that can later be verified or refuted by experiment.

Edit: Then engineers use the useful physics to build things useful to ordinary folks.

Yes. Even in philosophy, the only way out of the dead end of postmodern nihilistic despair is the philosophy of pragmatism. As the Neopragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty points out, the concept of “truth” does no useful work. How would we know we have ever finally achieved the ultimate truth? There is no way we can know for sure, because that would mean then then there would be no further observations, no new ideas which could come along and change our minds. Being convinced that whatever we have is ultimate truth leads to close mindedness, and stagnation. The ultimate truth could all be that, as children like to sing, all life is “but a dream”. So we may be better off just not wasting our time arguing about what is truth, and focusing instead on what is the most useful (the most clever models, based on the best current observations we have, jibes with everything else we know, allows us to do and build useful things, make more accurate predictions, etc...), and what kind of world do we want to leave for our children and grandchildren.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0231140142/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Tanelorn]

I returned because I am not sure many of you were getting my drift. I wasn't specifically asking why mass resists a force. It was only intended as an example of how having the mathematical equations fool us into thinking we understand the real Physics, or as it used to be called the Natural Philosophy of how the Universe actually works.

Another example - I sometimes use curve fitting in my work. However the resulting equations tell us nothing at all about the solid state Physics processes taking place inside the semiconductor. I agree they are useful for modelling and simulations, but that is all.

Moving on to an example in Cosmology, I have seen curves for inflation and dark energy expansion of the Universe. But I have not seen anyone attempt an explanation for what is driving them. However, I may have missed an explanation because I only spend a few hours a year on the subject.
My gut says that everything we need to explain inflation and dark energy is already within our Universe and not some place beyond. Perhaps there is a correlation with the rate of mass being converted into energy, during matter/anti-matter annihilation during the BB, and more recently in stars, BHs and other nuclear processes since then?

Anyway this is all I was trying to say, Mathematics is not necessarily the underlying Physics.

 

[weirdoguy]

the real Physics

And what is "real physics" and how it differs from non-real physics?

all I was trying to say, Mathematics is not necessarily the underlying Physics.

No one says it is.

 

[PeterDonis]

I have seen curves for inflation and dark energy expansion of the Universe.

Where? Please give specific references.

I have not seen anyone attempt an explanation for what is driving them.

That may just be because you have not been looking in the right places. Or it may be because you have already seen such an explanation but have not recognized it for what it is.

The only way to figure these things out is to know where you have been looking, i.e., to have specific references.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I returned because I am not sure many of you were getting my drift. I wasn't specifically asking why mass resists a force. It was only intended as an example of how having the mathematical equations fool us into thinking we understand the real Physics, or as it used to be called the Natural Philosophy of how the Universe actually works.

Another example - I sometimes use curve fitting in my work. However the resulting equations tell us nothing at all about the solid state Physics processes taking place inside the semiconductor. I agree they are useful for modelling and simulations, but that is all.

Moving on to an example in Cosmology, I have seen curves for inflation and dark energy expansion of the Universe. But I have not seen anyone attempt an explanation for what is driving them. However, I may have missed an explanation because I only spend a few hours a year on the subject.
My gut says that everything we need to explain inflation and dark energy is already within our Universe and not some place beyond. Perhaps there is a correlation with the rate of mass being converted into energy, during matter/anti-matter annihilation during the BB, and more recently in stars, BHs and other nuclear processes since then?

Anyway this is all I was trying to say, Mathematics is not necessarily the underlying Physics.

Yes, this was stated very eloquently here, thank you.

It’s reminiscent of how Newton’s gravitational equations were a useful first step in trying to get a handle on understanding gravitational force and allow us to manipulate and exploit it. It gave us the relationship between the variables involved, but did not really explain the mechanism behind that relationship and why it was happening. Newton himself also seemed to have recognized this limitation. Even today we still don’t know the physics of what is really happening there to make these equations work the way they do- whether it’s gravitons or loop quantum gravity or something else. Or more recently we have all these elegant quantum mechanical equations, but have no idea why they work the way they do. Even Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance”. Maybe hopefully someday we will. I know there is a lot of work going on in that front. But the point is just knowing the equations and the relationships between the variables is not helpful in that regard, or at best only a good first step.

Knowing the mathematical relationships between variables empowers you because it gives you the power to manipulate them accurately. But that is only one aspect of knowing about your subject. It doesn’t give you insight into WHY that relationship is necessarily the way it is- the physics behind it. It’s like a trained seal who knows every time he jumps through the hoop he gets a fish. But he has no idea why- it’s just a relationship he knows holds between two variables, and so he uses it (this analogy is not meant to be derisive towards physicists- figuring out the relationships between variables is an important aspect of knowing something. It’s certainly better than nothing. , But I’m just trying to stress the point that it is by no means everything, even though it may give that illusion).

 

[weirdoguy]

It doesn’t give you insight into WHY that relationship is necessarily the way it is- the physics behind it.

Sigh. This whole thread is about why physics does not answer "why?" questions... E.g. post #4 sums it up quite well:

No, "why" questions are not part of physics, or indeed of any science. At least not if you expect a final answer to any of them.

For example, I could answer the question "why does mass resist force" by saying something like "because the local spacetime geometry tells the object to move along a geodesic, and the object resists any force trying to push the mass off of that geodesic trajectory". And then you would ask the obvious next question: "why does the local spacetime geometry tell the object to move along a geodesic?" (That's assuming you even accepted the answer I just gave, which is the best answer "science", in this case General Relativity, can give.) And physics has no answer to that question, other than "just because".

Even if, someday, we have a theory of quantum gravity, which can answer a question like "why does the local spacetime geometry tell the object to move along a geodesic?" with something like "because the underlying quantum gravity degrees of freedom produce effects that, in the low energy limit, look like a spacetime geometry that tells matter how to move", that still won't be a final answer, because the answer to the obvious next question, "why do the quantum gravity degrees of freedom produce those effects" will again be "just because".

And that will be true of any "why" question in any science: ultimately it will come to a point where the only answer is "just because".

 

[Dale]

the resulting equations tell us nothing at all about the solid state Physics processes taking place inside the semiconductor

How can a model both give correct predictions and yet tell you nothing at all? I don’t think that makes any sense.

 

[nuuskur]

Newtonian mechanics is a damn good approximation in case of small velocities. In light of this, I see no problem with mathematics nor physics. Different fields, different goals.

Also "the Problem.." sounds like the OP knows the ins and outs of both fields. I conjecture their knowledge in either is minimal

 

[Sophrosyne]

Sigh. This whole thread is about why physics does not answer "why?" questions... E.g. post #4 sums it up quite well:

So it’s not that you don’t think physics answers why questions. It’s just that you think there will always be a “why” after the “why”s now are answered. I can buy that.

But that’s a little different than saying physics in general does not answer why questions. It’s also different than thinking mathematics necessarily answers those questions.

 

[Sophrosyne]

How can a model both give correct predictions and yet tell you nothing at all? I don’t think that makes any sense.

Newton’s gravitational laws tell you the relationships between some variables such as mass and radius. But they do not give any insight as to why they should have that relationship necessarily, or how it works to give that relationship.

 

[weirdoguy]

Then what do you call the Higgs mechanism for an explanation for WHY objects have mass?

Why does Higgs mechanism look the way it looks? Why does it work? Why one Higgs field? For me it explains HOW some particles get their masses, not why.

 

[gmax137]

It's turtles, all the way down...

 

[Dale]

Newton’s gravitational laws tell you the relationships between some variables such as mass and radius.

That’s a lot more than nothing.

But they do not give any insight as to why they should have that relationship necessarily

That is just a wish for a bedtime story, or a modern take on traditional myths. It presumes that there is a reason why they should necessary have that relationship. The world doesn’t have to have such reasons.

 

[PeterDonis]

it’s not that you don’t think physics answers why questions. It’s just that you think there will always be a “why” after the “why”s now are answered.

Sort of. Pay careful attention to the answers that I gave examples of to "why" questions in the post of mine that was quoted. The whole point is that all of them were just "more physics". They were just explaining how the predictions of one model arise from the predictions of some lower-level model. None of them were explaining why the models are what they are--why they have the features they have, why those models and not others make correct predictions, etc. The latter kind of "why" is the "why" that people who ask "why" questions are actually looking for, and physics (or any science) never provides answers to those kinds of "why" questions at all.

 

[Sophrosyne]

That’s a lot more than nothing.

That is just a wish for a bedtime story, or a modern take on traditional myths. It presumes that there is a reason why they should necessary have that relationship. The world doesn’t have to have such reasons.

It doesn’t have to, but sometimes at least it does. We are working on many of those “why”s, and have even managed to answer some of them ovcasionally- from “why” objects have mass and inertia in Newton’s equations we have come up with the Higgs particle. From the “why”s of Newton’s gravitational equations we have general relativity, and are working on quantum loop gravity and string theory for even further answers to the “why”s. From the “why”s of magnets and electricity in Maxwells laws we have special relativity, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory.

So while I agree nature is under no obligation to always answer the “why”s, it seems that with a lot of work and persistence, it is willing to give up at least a few once in a while.

I like PeterDonis’ answer above. It makes sense.

 

[Dale]

Hmm, now your position makes even less sense to me. You start with the claim that mathematical relationships don’t give insight into “WHY”.

Knowing the mathematical relationships ... doesn’t give you insight into WHY that relationship is necessarily the way it is- the physics behind it.

And now you explicitly identify several different mathematical models that do answer “why”.

from “why” objects have mass and inertia in Newton’s equations we have come up with the Higgs particle. From the “why”s of Newton’s gravitational equations we have general relativity,

Do “WHY” and “why” mean two different things to you? If so, can you explain your different meanings in the two posts? If not, then how can a mathematical model not give insight into “WHY” but can give insight into “why”?

Most importantly: if the mathematical models are acceptable to answer “why” then what made them unacceptable to answer “WHY” in the first place? This seems like a big inconsistency. If they can answer “why” then I personally don’t see how they could not answer “WHY”.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm starting to ask myself "why?"

 

[Sophrosyne]

Why does Higgs mechanism look the way it looks? Why does it work? Why one Higgs field? For me it explains HOW some particles get their masses, not why.

Higgs was the answer as to why particles have masses. As to why it works, that’s the next why. There are always further whys. That doesn’t mean they cannot be answered.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Hmm, now your position makes even less sense to me. You start with the claim that mathematical relationships don’t give insight into “WHY”.And now you explicitly identify several different mathematical models that do answer “why”. Do “WHY” and “why” mean two different things to you? If so, can you explain your different meanings in the two posts? If not, then how can a mathematical model not give insight into “WHY” but can give insight into “why”?

Most importantly: if the mathematical models are acceptable to answer “why” then what made them unacceptable to answer “WHY” in the first place? This seems like a big inconsistency. If they can answer “why” then I personally don’t see how they could not answer “WHY”.

Yeah I know it must look confusing. That’s because I changed my mind after reading PeterDonis’ post. It happens, you know. :)

Now I think it’s OK to answer the whys of certain mathematical models with further mathematical models. I am starting to think of mathematics as just a sixth sense we can use. Of course like the other senses, it is not infallible. It is not the secret glimpse into the world of ideal forms and ultimate truths Plato had hoped for. But it does a pretty good job for many things.

 

[Dale]

Yeah I know it must look confusing. That’s because I changed my mind after reading PeterDonis’ post. It happens, you know. :)

Now I think it’s OK to answer the whys of certain mathematical models with further mathematical models. I am starting to think of mathematics as just a sixth sense we can use. Of course like the other senses, it is not infallible. It is not the secret glimpse into the world of ideal forms and ultimate truths Plato had hoped for. But it does a pretty good job for many things.

Haha, yes @PeterDonis can be quite persuasive! It has happened to me too.

I agree with you now.

 

[Dale]

Of course like the other senses, it is not infallible. It is not the secret glimpse into the world of ideal forms and ultimate truths Plato had hoped for.

I completely agree here. The main reason that we need experiments is precisely because of this. Experiments and the scientific method is what tells us when we have the math wrong.

 

[fresh_42]

The mystery behind such debates is in my opinion, why never ever anybody asks why
$$
\text{Vol}=l \cdot d \cdot h
$$
or
$$
U=R\cdot I
$$
but nobody seems to be satisfied with
$$
\mathcal{L}_{QED}=\bar{\psi}\left(i \gamma^\mu\partial_\mu -m_e \right)\psi - e\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi A_\mu-\dfrac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+\dfrac{1}{2}m_\gamma A_\mu A^\mu
$$

 

[pinball1970]

The mystery behind such debates is in my opinion, why never ever anybody asks why
$$
\text{Vol}=l \cdot d \cdot h
$$
or
$$
U=R\cdot I
$$
but nobody seems to be satisfied with
$$
\mathcal{L}_{QED}=\bar{\psi}\left(i \gamma^\mu\partial_\mu -m_e \right)\psi - e\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi A_\mu-\dfrac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+\dfrac{1}{2}m_\gamma A_\mu A^\mu
$$

The last one looks complicated so I googled it. (I thought the middle one was V?)
Is this a matter of the deeper something goes the more questions are raised?
Or a macro system is more intuitive?

 

[fresh_42]

Is this a matter of the deeper something goes the more questions are raised?

Yes. The question here is: Why does our mathematics describe the phenomena? But nobody ever doubted the formulas for volume or voltage. As soon as 'quantum' comes up anywhere, the entire trust seemed to be gone. Now it's me asking: Why is that the case?

 

[anorlunda]

As soon as 'quantum' comes up anywhere, the entire trust seemed to be gone. Now it's me asking: Why is that the case?

I would guess that many people are like Einstein, believing, "God does not play dice," and rejecting any contrary evidence.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but nobody seems to be satisfied with

Well, what you write isn't gauge-invariant for one, not with that last term there.

 

[fresh_42]

Well, what you write isn't gauge-invariant for one, not with that last term there.

I was satisfied understanding the left-hand side. And, yes, the first lecture note I found on Higgs-field ...

 

[pinball1970]

Yes. The question here is: Why does our mathematics describe the phenomena? But nobody ever doubted the formulas for volume or voltage. As soon as 'quantum' comes up anywhere, the entire trust seemed to be gone. Now it's me asking: Why is that the case?

We evolved to understand the large? not particles, fields?

QM measurement?
Not one agreed picture of what is going on? Interpretation?
Gravity an issue?

 

[gmax137]

There are always further whys. That doesn’t mean they cannot be answered.

No. "Why" not. Do… or do not. There is no why.

Maybe he was on to something there...

 

[Office_Shredder]

People don't ask why $V=RI$ because they are told why, it's electrons flowing through a wire that cause it to happen.

The formula for volume is a formula for counting, not physics. Though I would guess most people would not be able to describe it as such I think intuitively that's how they think about it.

 

[pinball1970]

Yes. The question here is: Why does our mathematics describe the phenomena? But nobody ever doubted the formulas for volume or voltage. As soon as 'quantum' comes up anywhere, the entire trust seemed to be gone. Now it's me asking: Why is that the case?

We live in an ordered universe with rules

Particles have a fixed mass have charge and interact in predictable ways (forgetting all the unknown weird QM stuff for now)

Why should we be surprised that an ordered system describes it?

If we lived in a universe where these relationships did not exist and we lived in a jumbled mass of chaotic masses/ fields varying from moment to moment then no system would describe it.

Surely mathematics would not only not describe physics in that universe, it would not describe anything all, or be a thing?

 

[russ_watters]

We live in an ordered universe with rules

Particles have a fixed mass have charge and interact in predictable ways (forgetting all the unknown weird QM stuff for now)

Why should we be surprised that an ordered system describes it?

If we lived in a universe where these relationships did not exist and we lived in a jumbled mass of chaotic masses/ fields varying from moment to moment then no system would describe it.

Surely mathematics would not only not describe physics in that universe, it would not describe anything all, or be a thing?

I'm not sure you were following @fresh_42 's point and he knows all that. He's observing that people don't ask "why" or "what's beyond" for mundane things like the formula for volume, but they do for QM (Relativity too). The answer to his question surely is; because it's weird and hard to understand, therefore hard to accept at face value.

[Edit]
Though this thread's premise seems to me to be a wholesale rejection of what physics is. ...which I find mind boggling.

 

[BWV]

Any sufficiently advanced mathematics is indistinguishable from magic?

 

[Rive]

Any sufficiently advanced mathematics is indistinguishable from magic?

If you take math as the language of physics, then that should be gibberish instead, right?

 

[BWV]

If you take math as the language of physics, then that should be gibberish instead, right?

either way, seems though that the threshold for physics woo seems to be that individual's level of mathematical understanding. Never heard F=MA invoked to support mysticism.

 

[fresh_42]

either way, seems though that the threshold for physics woo seems to be that individual's level of mathematical understanding. Never heard F=MA invoked to support mysticism.

But only because ghosts have no mass!

 

[Digcoal]

The Pythagorean theorem states that the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares on the other two sides. But it doesn't state why. It is just an observation.

View attachment 280257​

If you go further down that wiki article you pulled that picture from, you'll see a better geometric proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem

 

[Digcoal]

I don’t think that is a philosophical question. You have to define your quantities to do science.

This is reasonable. I generally think of Newton’s 2nd law as defining force rather than mass, but you could make a self-consistent approach defining mass that way.

However, you can also make it a true scientific statement. Often, the equations you use depend on the units you use. In SI units Newton’s 2nd law is $\Sigma F= ma$ and it is a definition since there is no independent SI unit of force.

But suppose that we have a system of units where force has its own unit, eg defined by a prototype spring. Then Newton’s 2nd law would be $\Sigma F=kma$. You could then measure $k$ and show that it was a universal constant independent of the type of force and the amount of mass. Eventually you would find that your uncertainty in $k$ was due primarily to your prototype spring and you might change your unit system so that $k$ was a fixed defined constant and Newton’s 2nd law again becomes a definition.

It is an equation. It defines a RELATIONSHIP between values. It does not define anyone of those values.

If you know the the MASS of an object and you measure how fast it ACCELERATES, you can determine the force applied to it. This is how you can determine the gravitational acceleration at various altitudes or on different planets and moons or around larger celestial objects like stars and black holes.

If you know the ACCELERATION due to gravity and the MASS of an object, you can determine the force that object will apply upon impact. You can determine how high it will go or how long it will remain in the air when a force opposite the force of gravity is applied to it.

If you measure the ACCELERATION an object undergoes, and you know how much FORCE is being applied to it, you can determine its mass.

If you want to be philosophical about it, think of it as the difference between Knowledge and Wisdom. Knowledge is the definition of an idea whereas Wisdom is the understanding of the relationship between two ideas. Knowing and Understanding are two different states of cognition, and it is why college "education" is so broken. Students learn things, but they do not understand how those things relate to other things much less understanding what to use that knowledge for.

 

[etotheipi]

If you know the ACCELERATION due to gravity and the MASS of an object, you can determine the force that object will apply upon impact.

Actually, you cannot. Even in the simplest model you also need the duration $\delta t$ of impact as well as the 6 initial conditions $(\mathbf{x}(0), \mathbf{v}(0))$ to find the average force required on impact to bring the body to rest. But it is really a much more complicated problem than that! The force will be dependent on time as well as position within the region of contact; see e.g. Landau/Lifshitz volume 7 for details on the elastic deformation of deformable bodies.

 

[Digcoal]

I returned because I am not sure many of you were getting my drift. I wasn't specifically asking why mass resists a force. It was only intended as an example of how having the mathematical equations fool us into thinking we understand the real Physics, or as it used to be called the Natural Philosophy of how the Universe actually works.

Another example - I sometimes use curve fitting in my work. However the resulting equations tell us nothing at all about the solid state Physics processes taking place inside the semiconductor. I agree they are useful for modelling and simulations, but that is all.

Moving on to an example in Cosmology, I have seen curves for inflation and dark energy expansion of the Universe. But I have not seen anyone attempt an explanation for what is driving them. However, I may have missed an explanation because I only spend a few hours a year on the subject.
My gut says that everything we need to explain inflation and dark energy is already within our Universe and not some place beyond. Perhaps there is a correlation with the rate of mass being converted into energy, during matter/anti-matter annihilation during the BB, and more recently in stars, BHs and other nuclear processes since then?

Anyway this is all I was trying to say, Mathematics is not necessarily the underlying Physics.

The brain is designed to accumulate information and remove superfluous data to achieve understanding. It does this in every region of the brain, and it is meant to provide a summary of the most pertinent information to the presented problem. However, the presented problem may not be adequately defined leaving the brain to exclude pertinent information in its calculations. This is why defining the problem is the most important step to solving any problem.

This means that "truth" is valid depending on perspective of the problem as well as the information used to solve it. Mathematics is merely a tool to abstractly describe all these things (problem, data, information, solution) which means it creates a universal language for multiple minds to work on the same problems. From one perspective, Mathematics may not be the underlying Physics, but another perspective may reveal that Mathematics is the underlying "Physics" making "Physics" the logical outcome of the Mathematics. This debate is at least as old as Plato's "Divided Line" allegory. It is also as new as the debate about the Simulation Universe.

If you are familiar with "collision detection" in computer game programming, you will see an eerie similarity to the "Physics" underlying electrons. If you are familiar with Procedurally Generated Programming and its associated seeds, you will see an eerie similarity to The Theory of Everything (Procedurally Generated Program) and the initial conditions of the Universe (seed). Perhaps the natural tendency to simulate our hypothesis is really just an innate drive toward building a new existence based upon the underlying "Physics" of our existence. Just like an AI that arises within an advanced Procedurally Generated Program will have no way of interacting outside of its programmed existence, we would have no way of doing the same. The singularity at the beginning of the Universe (seed) is the limit of what we can understand with 100% certainty. Anything before that occurred in a different reality (with, possibly, different Physical Laws/Universal Code) before the Physical Laws/Universal Code of our reality was written.

Even before we get to Physical Laws/Universal Code, our brains are computers designed to create simulations based off of data accumulated through interaction outside of our brains. Our "reality" is the result of psychoLOGICALly constructed representations of the patterns of data we accumulate. Whether it is technoLOGIC or psychoLOGIC, it all comes down to the state of one thing, the state of another thing, the relationship between those two things, and the evolution from one state to another: binary definitions and operations.

 

[Digcoal]

And what is "real physics" and how it differs from non-real physics?

No one says it is.

I said it was possible.

So, that's not 'no one.' lol

 

[Frabjous]

Actually, you cannot. Even in the simplest model you also need the duration $\delta t$ of impact as well as the 6 initial conditions $(\mathbf{x}(0), \mathbf{v}(0))$ to find the average force required on impact to bring the body to rest. But it is really a much more complicated problem than that! The force will be dependent on time as well as position within the region of contact; see e.g. Landau/Lifshitz volume 7 for details on the elastic deformation of deformable bodies.

I disagree. This is reductionism. I could just as easily refute the continuum approximation with the atomistic approximation. Which someone would refute with a nucleus/electron approximation. Which someone would refute with …

 

[Digcoal]

If you take math as the language of physics, then that should be gibberish instead, right?

Any language is "gibberish" to those who do not understand that language. Even dialects WITHIN a language can be construed as "gibberish."

There is "gibberish" everywhere an attempt to understand an unknown language is made. Ever plug video cables into an audio port or vice versa? Ever heard of synesthesia? Ever try to run a program written for one OS on a different OS? Ever try to convert an executable into an ASCII format and try to read it? Ever try to navigate the web using IP addresses instead of URLs? Ever take a gesture of affection as creepy or have your gesture of affection taken as creepy? Ever try to have a conversation with a female or a toddler? Ever make a joke near people with no humor?

 

[etotheipi]

I disagree. This is reductionism. I could just as easily refute the continuum approximation with the atomistic approximation. Which someone would refute with a nucleus/electron approximation.

What?

 

[Mayhem]

Any sufficiently advanced mathematics is indistinguishable from magic rubbish?

Think about it.

 

[etotheipi]

Not going to lie: I think this thread is a one-way ticket to crazy town and I'd suggest it be closed.

 

[fresh_42]

Not going to lie: I think this thread is a one-way ticket to crazy town and I'd suggest it be closed.

I agree with this. It appears that we have lost focus and the discussion is turning towards philosophy, partly due to the subject itself.

Math is to physics as notes are to music. One can like it or not, but as long as anybody doesn't come up with a really, really, really good idea, that is capable to overturn many centuries of successful practice, as long will this fact remain the case.