Why is mathematics so ridiculously effective?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bobbytkc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the question of why mathematics is so effective in describing the physical universe. Participants explore the implications of mathematical methods in physics, the historical context of mathematical development, and the philosophical questions surrounding the relationship between mathematics and physical laws.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the mathematical method has evolved significantly since the time of Aristotle, with a notable shift following Newton's contributions and the development of calculus.
  • One participant questions the assumption that the universe follows mathematical laws, arguing that laws are constructed based on observations rather than inherent properties of the universe.
  • Another viewpoint posits that any law the universe follows can be represented mathematically, leading to a facetious assertion that the universe follows mathematical laws.
  • A participant references Paul Dirac's prediction of antimatter as an example of how mathematics can lead to unexpected discoveries, emphasizing the role of mathematical reasoning in scientific advancement.
  • Concerns are raised about the limitations of testing physical theories, with a participant noting that theories are often assumed to extend beyond tested scenarios through mathematical extrapolation.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the original question, suggesting it may be ill-posed or circular in reasoning, while others argue for the possibility of a non-mathematical universe that still operates under ordered rules.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a range of views, with no consensus on whether the universe inherently follows mathematical laws or if mathematics is merely a tool for modeling observed phenomena. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing perspectives on the nature of mathematics in relation to the physical world.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the historical evolution of mathematical methods and their application in physics, as well as the philosophical implications of assuming a mathematical structure to the universe. Limitations in testing physical theories and the nature of mathematical representation are also discussed, but no definitive conclusions are reached.

  • #31
selfAdjoint said:
This is just deliberate mistification, spinning words without meaning.

This is just wrong. Science is not arbitrary; its theories have to work out in practice. Yes they may be falsified and replaced by better theories, but that is not arbitrary.

I agree somewhat with you, when you reach the edge of knowledge it is hard to express thoughts.

If you look at science and the laws of physics from a far enough point of view, they are just quirk assignments, they have no intrinsic necessity. This does not mean they do not work or that they are incorrect, yes they work and are correct especially for us humans as they pertain to our subjective experience, our sense organs, the way our mind is hardwired, the way we carve out our knowledge by following paths through pain/pleasure measurements, etc.

But seen for what they are, the laws of physics are just quirks, they could have been anything else, they could be anything else and even a complete lawless universe could be. They are equivalent, they are like paintings, arbitrary designs. If a god assigns miracles magically, it would be completely equivalent to a sequence of causes and effects, magical assignments make just as much sense as physical laws and mathematical laws. They are bizarre quirks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32
What utter nonsense this has degenerated into.
 
  • #33
matt grime said:
What utter nonsense this has degenerated into.

Oh I see, that's very scary isn't it?
 
  • #34
kmarinas86 said:
Oh I see, that's very scary isn't it?

Not scary, silly and boring. Philosophy does not mean a teen-age bull session.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K