Matter or mathematics?

[nameta9]

Does matter follow precise mathematical laws or is mathematics simply a good approximation and tool used to describe matter ? If all there is is mathematical relationships, then matter and all physics actually doesn't even exist if only as a metaphor for equations. If matter only APPROXIMATELY follows mathematical laws, then there is room for a real metaphysical universe made up of non mathematical items. Could matter and reality simply be what remains after all the equations have been calculated as a sort of error ? Matter is the "error" in our calculations, or it could be that the quantum imprecision is what gives matter some "substance" as opposed as being only mathematical items. Any ideas ?, there is always some confusion as where matter, physics starts and mathematics ends.......

[insane_alien]

That is the basics of physics. EVERYTHING not just matter ,although matter and energy are the samething, follows precise mathematical laws. theories are what we think those equations are. the only error comes from having a flawed theory which means we have to formulate a new theory which can explain more than the old theory and why the old theory was right when it was.

[nameta9]

This is another example of irreducible complexity. Matter-physics can be described "completely ?" by math but math needs some "external" reference to exist, but the external reference can be described by math etc. So what came first math or matter ? Or maybe it is LOGIC, a subset of logic called MATH and a subset of math called PHYSICS ? It is very confusing, is the universe a complete sea of mathematical formulas, equations within which matter is floating on ? Is there something totally NON-MATHEMATICAL ? very confusing....

 

I think I am on to something here. If matter only obeys mathematical rules, then reality doesn't exist at all and a complete simulation of a universe on a computer is just as real as our "real" universe. Is math just a refined , precision language to describe interacting items ? Is the basis of logic just relaltionships ? Then the elementary particles of physics and the theory of everything has ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED AND IS JUST "THE MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION OF INTERACTING ITEMS" ! The details of these equations and formulas and how far or close they predict real phenomena is mostly IRRELEVANT! So I think I have finally conquered the theory of everything, or maybe I am really just confused on the realtionship between math, physics and how math is used to describe physics....

 

It may also be that we use math in a very narrow range of problems we need to solve, (like designing a rocket) and it is just a handy tool with absolutely no metaphysical importance whatsoever.

[CPL.Luke]

maht is just a handy tool, we formulate physical laws into the language of mathmatics. A theory that combines all of the fundamental forces has not yet been created. ohter than that I really can't tell what your talking about

[nameta9]

Bottom line:

 

Does matter exist or is it only a set of mathematical relationships ?

 

Is physics simply a subset of mathematics ?

 

What does it really mean when we cannot solve differential equations of physical systems ? Is matter following equations at all times ?

 

I find it intriguing and confusing.....

[Royston]

Bottom line:

 

Does matter exist or is it only a set of mathematical relationships ?

 

Is physics simply a subset of mathematics ?

 

What does it really mean when we cannot solve differential equations of physical systems ? Is matter following equations at all times ?

 

I find it intriguing and confusing.....

 

I think we can safely assume matter does exist (or if it doesn't it makes no difference to us) as it's observable. Maths is used to back up theories posed by physics into credible models. Though I'm sure you realize this...I'm not really sure why you're confused by this.

 

In some instances mathematical equations shape theories in physics ...e.g models for the inside of a black hole. But only for phenomena we cannot observe...they remain theories. Maths isn't really a subset more a tool for explanation and backing a theory. Physics is predominantly along with most disciplines in science based on our observations.

 

I'm under the belief that everything can be equatable...eventually. Maths is just a universal language that can only be questioned by philosophy...as it's a human invention. I guess there has to be an equatable model for everything, otherwise I'm not sure how everything relates to everything else (I believe it has to)...I'm not convinced it would work if there were some major discrepancies.

[nameta9]

Just like natural language can describe, relate and encompass all reality, even math, although it would be very wordy (energy is equal to mass times light speed times light speed etc.) , so math does the same. So all reality is just a sequence of symbols and language, either mathematical or natural.

 

It would seem that it really doesn't matter what the laws are just as long as they are mathematical laws, after which all and any other kind of laws can be discovered or invented. So in a universe that has completely different laws that allow a human mind to appear, that mind can reverse engineer the mathematical laws of the universe, and then invent all mathematical laws, and universes and simulate the laws of our particular universe as we know it.

[nameta9]

In another forum, someone answered me as follows:

 

"I think you are not giving mathematics enough credit, because new math can be produced to fit new observations. However, because we can never say that our "laws" absolutely predict our observations perfectly, I think it does leave room for this "real mataphysical universe" you describe."

 

I answer:

 

So any kind of new math can be produced to fit any possible observation. So math is a handy "invention" to fool ourselves into thinking we know the laws of nature. When nature is slightly out of line we just add some "corrective terms" and go on forever like this. This reminds me of the Feynman diagrams of QED (quantum electrodynamics) where the precision of the calculations increases by calculating ever higher number of integrals , like I think 4 loops can correspond to 30 million integrals. So you add it up on a supercomuter see results, see experiments, measure the differences and say OK the differences are corrective terms in further integrals. Let's calculate 5 loops and then maybe 6 loop etc. What is the complete equation of QED ? trillions of integrals ? Aside that we may never know, but is it safe to assume math really does have this one to one correspondence with reality ? Or maybe is it safe to assume that OUR MIND AND IT'S LANGUAGES (MATH AND NATURAL) HAVE A ONE TO ONE CORRESPONDENCE WITH REALITY-MATTER ?

 

The problem if all reality-matter is math is very important because if in the future we can simulate complete worlds on computers, then these worlds are just as real as ours. We may even be able to create hyper-real worlds that are even more "real" than ours.

 

Also, a computer the size of mars may someday be able to calculate trillions of feynman diagrams to the point of being more precise than any possible measurement. At that point we would have exceeded reality in reproducing matter-physics. A larger computer, maybe the size of the sun, could produce through simulations, a hyper-reality. The ratio between the size of the computer and the point where it exceeds any possible measurement would be the limits of reality as compared to mathematics, reality being A SUBSET OF MATHEMATICS.

[CPL.Luke]

didn't you hear the earth already is a computer

[oldtobor]

Simply stated THIS THREAD IS PRESENTING A FALSE PROBLEM. Mathematics is matter-physics and matter-physics is mathematics. Our senses don't do anything but measurements, everything we see is a measurement, a mathematical operation etc. An object occupies space, has coordinates is present at a time t0 etc. We percieve proportions and geometrical relations and logical cause and effect. Natural language expresses these things in a more vague and abstract way, math is the precision language. We just zero in on some phenomena and apply a precision language to describe it. Everything has some regularity, order and math expresses this. There is no way to perceive matter or physics without somehow putting it in some reference system of time,space weight etc, hence math and logic.

 

When physicists say that math seems miraculous in that it can explain things, they have it all wrong. We can ONLY EXPLAIN THINGS WITH MATH AND LOGIC, indeed only with some language that divides things into interacting items. Actually NATURAL LANGUAGE IS WAY MORE MIRACULOUS THAN MATH!.

 

It is just that we split the object of observation from the language observing it and call the language a miracle. This is false, there is no miracle, even the ancients thought it was a miracle to dance and provoke rain. They where fooling themselves. Also math needs a material substrate to be written on and matter follows the mathematical laws. Which came first ? both because they are the same thing.

[Severian]

When physicists say that math seems miraculous in that it can explain things, they have it all wrong.

 

That's not true. There is no a priori reason why maths should descibe the physical world. The fact that it does is very handy for us, otherwise we couldn't formulate our scientific laws. Indeed, the predictivity of the universe, ie. that it is governed by laws at all, is an assumption of science made at the outset. It is an assumption that has never been seen to fail but it is still an assumption (actually, I am not quite sure whether science would even spot a failure of predictivity - we would probably just put it down to having the theory a wee bit wrong). It could well be that there are some phenomena in the universe which cannot be descibed by mathematics and physical laws.

[oldtobor]

It could well be that there are some phenomena in the universe which cannot be descibed by mathematics and physical laws.

 

A non mathematical phenomena would have to be described. The description would be first in a natural language, which implies some kind of logic, some relationship, some cause and effect, some kind of comparison to something etc. A more precise description would be made through a mathematical model and even if there where almost no laws, you could always use random number generators or probability etc.

 

Bottom line MATH IS MATTER-PHYSICS (or the description of it). NATURAL LANGUAGE IS A SUPERSET OF MATH GREATLY MORE POWERFUL since we can conceive of non mathematical entities with natural language.

 

ART would probably be the most powerful language we have since anything goes.

[nameta9]

Indeed, the predictivity of the universe, ie. that it is governed by laws at all, is an assumption[/i'] of science made at the outset. It is an assumption that has never been seen to fail but it is still an assumption

 

Well since the time we are born and open our eyes all we see is mostly REGULARITY. Things stay in place unless you move them, things fall always in a similar fashion etc. It is natural then to start thinking that some constant rules govern things. From here then to the evolution of science, it is a straight progressing line.

 

A real experiment would be done in the future with a mind (brain in a vat) that evolves and is completely used to random events, completely non sense rules that appear and dissappear etc. Then set this mind to our world, then this mind would be shocked to see regularity and consider mathematical laws a miracle.