- #1
th3plan
- 93
- 0
Does the universe follow a mathematical logic? It seems to me it does. yes we don't know everything about the universe but as we have learned more it still holds up to be logical.
th3plan said:Does the universe follow a mathematical logic? It seems to me it does. yes we don't know everything about the universe but as we have learned more it still holds up to be logical.
th3plan said:Does the universe follow a mathematical logic? It seems to me it does. yes we don't know everything about the universe but as we have learned more it still holds up to be logical.
th3plan said:Does the universe follow a mathematical logic? It seems to me it does. yes we don't know everything about the universe but as we have learned more it still holds up to be logical.
Pythagorean said:pure logic wouldn't get anywhere without the leaps of faith called assumptions. We merely accept a mindset and go with it. We give up other ways of perceiving things by choosing to understand it one way.
ESTÉRA said:To put it simply logic is based on what we precieve and what we precieve is reality not the other way around.
The more we understand our reality, the more logic is adjusted.
th3plan said:Does the universe follow a mathematical logic? It seems to me it does. yes we don't know everything about the universe but as we have learned more it still holds up to be logical.
SixNein said:The universe does not follow mathematical logic. We can describe portions of it however there is certain properties of the universe that mathematics will never be able to explain logically..
btw - this has been proven to be correct.
Math Is Hard said:How could you know that? Which properties are outside logical explanation?Who proved that?
apeiron said:This is rather an abuse of Godel. He was arguing that there are aspects of mathematics which can never be explained from within mathematics itself. Some things must be assumed as axioms to get the show started.
Many good epistemologists followed on from Godel to make better sense of this, such as Robert Rosen (my particular favourite).
A quick summary would be that we have a modelling relation with reality that involves our formal models and our informal measurements - actually a feedback loop process of predicting and then checking.
Mathematics is part of the modelling, a human creation, and we are doing our best to fit the model to the reality we observe.
So to ask whether the universe "is" mathematically logical is to conflate model and reality. Instead, the correct question is how closely do our logical models and observed reality then conform.
We might say that if the two seem to dovetail exactly, then bingo, we can say the universe "is" that way for all intents and purposes. Bur a catch is that models also have purposes. They are not naked creations, but intentional practices. I could say I want to model reality for the purpose of understanding its truth. Or I could instead say I want to model reality in a way that maximises my control over it. And the kinds of models that result are actually different in deep ways. So good epistemology requires the model and the modeled to be kept separate.
Where does maths come into this? Math is really only the science of pattern, the logic of forms. It is the shapes that things must fall into, the regularities that must emerge.
And it is as abstract as possible. A style of models that is all generals or universals, with all local particulars pushed out into the measurement side of the modelling relation.
So the number 1. It can stand for one anything. Within the realm of formal modlling. And then to answer 1 what, we must make a measurement. We must look out into the world and (informally) put a finger on that 1 thing.
The general answer then is that the universe does seem to fall into logical patterns (it is regular, and regular for self-organising reasons) and mathematics is the attempt to formally model things that fall into logical patterns.
Reality cannot work any other way (we must presume) and our formal modelling will work best when it also does the same thing.
SixNein said:Not really, you cannot be complete and consistent in any system. So if you wanted to model the universe, your model would never be complete or never be consistent. Thus you cannot ever logically describe the universe.
neopolitan said:There's potentially a little bit of wriggle room. Logic doesn't say you can't consider the universe from the outside. If you were to do so, cognizant of the fact that you don't know anything about that outside, then Godel's incompleteness theorem doesn't apply, nor does Russell's set theory proscription about self defining sets.
I've certainly considered the universe from an outside perspective, so it is possible, even if purists don't like it. I see it as just a variation on looking at the past, which we can certainly look at from the outside. At one scale, you run into problems with the fact that you yourself are in the universe, but most physics theories won't depend very heavily on whether you are there or not (those sorts of theories are called "theology" :) )
cheers,
neopolitan
SixNein said:Not really, you cannot be complete and consistent in any system. So if you wanted to model the universe, your model would never be complete or never be consistent. Thus you cannot ever logically describe the universe.
apeiron said:Again, I don't think you really get the fairly limited conclusion that should be drawn from Godel's famous proof.
If you are talking about formal models, as he was, then they can be complete and constistent in themselves. But assumptions are needed to get the modelling going. So something has to come from "outside" the model itself.
Because you are failing to keep the distinction between the modeller and the modeled clear in your arguments, you are conflating two senses of how modelling can be complete (and consistent).
Godel can be used to argue for the completeness of modelling (its self-completeness) and the incompleteness of modelling (the need for measurement), depending on which part of this story you are talking about.
And the question was: is the Universe logical? So Godel would only be introduced here to make points about the fact we have to step back and separate the idea of logic (a model of causality) and a universe (an example of real causality which we would seek to model, and indeed inspires our ideas of causality).
Mathematics is too often treated as some kind of platonic magic that exists outside worlds. Modelling theory helps heal that ancient rift.
The universe and logical math are intrinsically connected. Logical math is the language we use to describe and make sense of the patterns and laws of the universe. It provides a framework for understanding the natural world and how it functions.
Logic is essential in understanding the mysteries of the universe. It allows us to make logical deductions and draw conclusions from observations and data. Without logic, we would not be able to formulate theories or make sense of the complexity of the universe.
Yes, the laws of the universe can be described using mathematical equations. These equations help us understand the behavior of matter, energy, and other fundamental forces in the universe. Many scientific theories, such as Einstein's theory of relativity and Newton's laws of motion, are based on mathematical equations.
It is believed that the universe follows a set of logical rules and laws that govern its behavior. However, there may be aspects of the universe that are still a mystery to us and may not fit into our current understanding of logical math. As we continue to explore and discover more about the universe, our understanding of its logic may also evolve.
The study of logical math is crucial in understanding the universe. It allows us to formulate theories, make predictions, and test them through experiments and observations. Logical math also helps us make sense of complex systems and phenomena in the universe, from the movement of planets to the behavior of subatomic particles.