Proposition: The underlying approach to their subjects by Physics and Mathematics are the antithesis of each other.

[studiot]

 

I have started this thread to help jasper better understand science as a result of this comment.

 

11 hours ago, Jasper10 said:

But it is on topic because in my opinion all sciences are interconnected and philosophy does have a direct connection to scientific theories/equations.

 

I have placed the discussion in Philosophy to be even handed to both Sciences which I propose

The underlying approach to their subjects by Physics and Mathematics are the antithesis of each other, curious because Physics relies so heavily on Mathemstics.

 

[exchemist]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I have started this thread to help jasper better understand science as a result of this comment.

 

 

I have placed the discussion in Philosophy to be even handed to both Sciences which I propose

The underlying approach to their subjects by Physics and Mathematics are the antithesis of each other, curious because Physics relies so heavily on Mathemstics.

 

OK but why seize on mathematics, when @Jasper10's comment was to do with science and philosophy, rather than  mathematics? 

Philosophy obviously does have a connection to science, since science relies on a certain approach to understanding the world which implicitly makes philosophical choices, e.g. reliance on methodological naturalism, the role of observation in developing and testing theories, and so forth. 

Regarding mathematics, I'm not sure what you mean by antithesis. I'd have though the true antithesis of mathematics would be something that was not quantitative and did not employ logic. Poetry, perhaps?

Edited July 1, 2022 by exchemist

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, exchemist said:

OK but why seize on mathematics, when @Jasper10's comment was to do with science and philosophy, rather than  mathematics? 

Philosophy obviously does have a connection to science, since science relies on a certain approach to understanding the world which implicitly makes philosophical choices, e.g. reliance on methodological naturalism, the role of observation in developing and testing theories, and so forth. 

Regarding mathematics, I'm not sure what you mean by antithesis. I'd have though the true antithesis of mathematics would be something that was not quantitative and did not employ logic. Poetry, perhaps?

Fair questions.

Jasper said "all sciences" , in which I include Mathematics.

The point is that Mathematics is (or would like to be) axiomatic based.

Whereas Physics has no axioms, only principles.

In fact whilst is is a requirement of a system of axioms in Maths to be self consistent, Physics (and many other sciences) is a study of the opposition of different agents and what happens when the result needs to satisfy both (or them all)  in some way.

 

Does this answer your question ?

 

[Jasper10]

50 minutes ago, exchemist said:

OK but why seize on mathematics, when @Jasper10's comment was to do with science and philosophy, rather than  mathematics? 

Philosophy obviously does have a connection to science, since science relies on a certain approach to understanding the world which implicitly makes philosophical choices, e.g. reliance on methodological naturalism, the role of observation in developing and testing theories, and so forth. 

Regarding mathematics, I'm not sure what you mean by antithesis. I'd have though the true antithesis of mathematics would be something that was not quantitative and did not employ logic. Poetry, perhaps?

My comments/views/opinions are related to philosophy and all the sciences shall we say.

If the sciences cannot find a correlation to philosophy and if philosophy cannot find a correlation to science then both are on the wrong pathway because it is my view that both are interconnected and totally embroiled together.They are inseparable.

Consciousness is a tricky one because where does it sit? Does it sit in the philosophy or the science camp?

Science needs to start taking into account consciousness and the human experience/interaction to it.

The human interaction with consciousness should correlate with both philosophy and science.

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

My comments/views/opinions are related to philosophy and all the sciences shall we say.

If the sciences cannot find a correlation to philosophy and if philosophy cannot find a correlation to science then both are on the wrong pathway because it is my view that both are interconnected and totally embroiled together.They are inseparable.

Consciousness is a tricky one because where does it sit? Does it sit in the philosophy or the science camp?

Science needs to start taking into account consciousness and the human experience/interaction to it.

The human interaction with consciousness should correlate with both philosophy and science.

I'm sorry you have completely missed the point of this thread.

This is not about consciousness

I carefully separated it out from a thread about that subject, because it is not about consciousness.

You were having, let us call them discussions, with the moderators in that thread.

This thread is there to help you understand what they and others are saying to you about Science.

[Jasper10]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I'm sorry you have completely missed the point of this thread.

This is not about consciousness

I carefully separated it out from a thread about that subject, because it is not about consciousness.

You were having, let us call them discussions, with the moderators in that thread.

This thread is there to help you understand what they and others are saying to you about Science.

Sorry but why do you think that science has nothing to do with consciousness? Science has everything to do with consciousness.Science can learn all it needs to learn from consciousness.The truth is that science doesn’t understand consciousness and freely admits it.I post stuff in order  to explain consciousness better and it’s direct relationship to both science and philosophy and the fact that it explains them both perfectly.

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

Sorry but why do you think that science has nothing to do with consciousness? Science has everything to do with consciousness.Science can learn all it needs to learn from consciousness.The truth is that science doesn’t understand consciousness and freely admits it.I post stuff in order  to explain consciousness better and it’s direct relationship to both science and philosophy and the fact that it explains them both perfectly.

I didnt say it did or that it didn't.

I said

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

This is not about consciousness

This, for your information and in accordance with the rules of the English language reffers to the last named nound, this this case "thread"

I even added, for clarity, the reason why this thread is not about consciousness.

 

Please read the postings of others before you react.

I have other mundane things to do this evening, like the wahing up, before the evening film.

[Jasper10]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I didnt say it did or that it didn't.

I said

This, for your information and in accordance with the rules of the English language reffers to the last named nound, this this case "thread"

I even added, for clarity, the reason why this thread is not about consciousness.

 

Please read the postings of others before you react.

I have other mundane things to do this evening, like the wahing up, before the evening film.

Apologies then and please please don’t take this personally but I’m not remotely interested in any discussions about science or philosophy for that matter that does not involve consciousness.Some of us have moved on from waste of time Spectator science and philosophy discussions that don’t involve consciousness.

Spectator science and philosophy that thinks it can leave consciousness out is a waste of time and boring as hell.Yawn…sorry.

[MigL]

So, stop wasting your time, and posting in a topic that is boring, and doesn't interest you ...

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Jasper10 said:

My comments/views/opinions are related to philosophy and all the sciences shall we say.

If the sciences cannot find a correlation to philosophy and if philosophy cannot find a correlation to science then both are on the wrong pathway because it is my view that both are interconnected and totally embroiled together.They are inseparable.

Consciousness is a tricky one because where does it sit? Does it sit in the philosophy or the science camp?

Science needs to start taking into account consciousness and the human experience/interaction to it.

The human interaction with consciousness should correlate with both philosophy and science.

How about using the best tools for describing consciousness and start with cognitive neuroscience/biopschology. That's where the nuts and bolts are. Philosophy is only useful in the sense of how one approaches the subject.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Fair questions.

Jasper said "all sciences" , in which I include Mathematics.

The point is that Mathematics is (or would like to be) axiomatic based.

Whereas Physics has no axioms, only principles.

In fact whilst is is a requirement of a system of axioms in Maths to be self consistent, Physics (and many other sciences) is a study of the opposition of different agents and what happens when the result needs to satisfy both (or them all)  in some way.

 

Does this answer your question ?

 

OK, thanks.  I don't consider Mathematics to be natural science, which is what I understand by the term "science" as it is commonly used today. 

2 hours ago, Jasper10 said:

My comments/views/opinions are related to philosophy and all the sciences shall we say.

If the sciences cannot find a correlation to philosophy and if philosophy cannot find a correlation to science then both are on the wrong pathway because it is my view that both are interconnected and totally embroiled together.They are inseparable.

Consciousness is a tricky one because where does it sit? Does it sit in the philosophy or the science camp?

Science needs to start taking into account consciousness and the human experience/interaction to it.

The human interaction with consciousness should correlate with both philosophy and science.

I don't think it is clear that science has anything to contribute to the idea of consciousness, until someone can provide an objectively measurable yardstick to describe consciousness. I don't think anyone has actually done that, have they?  

[NTuft]

On 7/1/2022 at 10:31 AM, studiot said:

The underlying approach to their subjects by Physics and Mathematics are the antithesis of each other, curious because Physics relies so heavily on Mathemstics.

On 7/1/2022 at 10:59 AM, studiot said:

The point is that Mathematics is (or would like to be) axiomatic based.

Whereas Physics has no axioms, only principles.

In fact whilst is is a requirement of a system of axioms in Maths to be self consistent, Physics (and many other sciences) is a study of the opposition of different agents and what happens when the result needs to satisfy both (or them all)  in some way.

I agree Mathematics is indispensible to Physics in its descriptions. I do not think that the approach to their topics seperately should be construed as antithetical. I think this comes from the conception that mathematics in its development has not always needed to correlate its constructions with any tangible reality, whereas physics is concerned with precisely trying to describe what can be observed as reality. However, I think there have been many times where mathematical developments that seemingy had no physical reality came to be found to be useful in descriptions of the natural sciences.

Perhaps you're saying that mathematics is more akin to logic in requiring self consistent axioms, whereas physics has to account for contradictory (i.e. not necessarily self consistent) phenomena? I do not necessarily agree that mathematics is or would like to be axiom based, but rather that it is constrained under axiomatic sets in some formulations (like physics is in some of its specific formulations) to maintain self-consistency, remain coherent and logical and thus create a system that can express ideas with mathematical rigor. I do not think that setting axioms (mathematics) vs. establishing principles (physics) can be said to be truly antithetical approaches.

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, NTuft said:

Perhaps you're saying that mathematics is more akin to logic in requiring self consistent axioms, whereas physics has to account for contradictory (i.e. not necessarily self consistent) phenomena?

Thank you for taking the time to actually think about my proposition. +1

Yes that is basically what I mean but I will provide some examples.

As to self consistency it is fundamental to mathematics.

Have you heard of The german 'Erlangen pogrom', Felix Klein and David Hilbert ?

The most famous mathematicians of their day set out to axiomatize the whole of mathematics in a systematic and self consistent way.
There was mush upset and furore when they failed and Godel came along and proved that such a task will always result in failure.

However the idea is so seductive that another group in France also tried this under the banner 'Bourbaki'.
There was an original soldier called Bourbaki. Subsequently it became the name of a secretive group of elite mathematicians which has continued to this day, despite knowing that the goal, like the holy grail, cannot be achieved.

You will often find references to the terminology, structures and definitions set up by these two groups when reading about mathematics.

 

 

As to an example of what I mean.

In maths you cannot have an axiom system that containsIn physics consider the atom, for instance

Axiom1   for all a, b  : a + b = a - b

Axiom2   [math]a,b \ne 0[/math]

 

Axiom 2 directly contradicts axiom 1.

 

In physics you can have two principle that may pull in opposite directions for example

1) Systems tend to minimum energy

2) Systems tend to maximum entropy

 

Physics allows both agents to coexist, the result being a balance between the two.

The atom exists as a balance between the twin opposite forces of attraction and repulsion.

A book on  a table does not fall to the gorund because the table is pushing it up just as hard as gravity is pulling it down.

 

This is what I mean when Is say that maths wants to make everything part of a grand consistent scheme where everything always works with everything else, whereas physics allows schemes where everything pulls 'every which way'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NTuft]

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Have you heard of The german 'Erlangen pogrom', Felix Klein and David Hilbert ?

The most famous mathematicians of their day set out to axiomatize the whole of mathematics in a systematic and self consistent way.
There was mush upset and furore when they failed and Godel came along and proved that such a task will always result in failure.

However the idea is so seductive that another group in France also tried this under the banner 'Bourbaki'.
There was an original soldier called Bourbaki. Subsequently it became the name of a secretive group of elite mathematicians which has continued to this day, despite knowing that the goal, like the holy grail, cannot be achieved.

You will often find references to the terminology, structures and definitions set up by these two groups when reading about mathematics.

I have read over this

Quote

The early enthusiasts for the constructivist approach, like Kronecker and Brouwer, proposed rebuilding the whole of mathematics constructively, avoiding the use of non-intuitive entities like infinite sets. Not surprisingly, this overly positivist proposal did not meet with great enthusiasm. It would have decimated mathematics (remember that depressing feeling when it was suggested that your high-school essay or scientific paper be completely rewritten?!). Hilbert believed that Brouwer's programme would be a disaster, even if it succeeded. He claimed that after the constructivists had finished with mathematics, "compared with the immense expanse of modern mathematics, what would the wretched remnant mean, a few isolated results, incomplete and unrelated, that the intuitionists have obtained."

What is Mathematics? by John D. Barrow, from The World Treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics, Ed.: Timothy Ferris; Little, Brown & Company: 1991.

I would infer that Bourbaki does not agree with Godel's incompleteness theorem, and I have read previously that some other contemporary luminaries of his were also not convinced by the theorem. Very interesting. I also assume you mean the Erlangen program? I will have to read up on the history of Klein and Hilbert in that context.

 

On the two examples, unless
+ b = - b

is some special property you're defining, yes it is hard to escape 2 b = 0. However b =/ 0 should then be sufficient to qualify the contradiction?

In terms of entropy, a concept I find exceedingly difficult, I would phrase it to be "possible degrees of freedom" for a particular thing under consideration. Energy in a system or a chemical tending towards lowest equilibrium value I do not think necessarily goes against the tendency towards increased entropy: a molecule in a ground state of excitation still has the availability to be excited to other entropic forms. I might even go so far as to say an energetic system that is excited may have less entropy than the one in a lower state, but I don't understand entropy well enough, and I'm not sure the excited state necessarily precludes the other degrees of freedom towards to the ground state or is active to reduce/increase entropy.

 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

This is what I mean when Is say that maths wants to make everything part of a grand consistent scheme where everything always works with everything else, whereas physics allows schemes where everything pulls 'every which way'.

I think physics is trying to do that, too, don't you? In order to make the scheme explanatory I would agree there are some extreme conceptual difficulties.

[Wizard22]

Philosophy underlies Science in the ideal of Objective Truths.  Physics and Mathematics, both presume such, and can be bound together by that (Empirical) Ideal.

Furthermore, the process and practice that binds Physics and Mathematics together, is the performance of Measurement and (data) Recording over time.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Wizard22 said:

Philosophy underlies Science in the ideal of Objective Truths.  Physics and Mathematics, both presume such, and can be bound together by that (Empirical) Ideal.

Furthermore, the process and practice that binds Physics and Mathematics together, is the performance of Measurement and (data) Recording over time.

Thank you for your reply.

I suppose it all hangs on your definition of 'truth'.

In Mathematics truth means 'consistent with the axioms'.
Note that this does not mean 'derivable from the axioms'.

Other disciplines employ different meanings.

In Philosophy you can have irresistible forces and immovable objects.

In Physics you can't have these things.

 

You also need to beware of differences in terminology.

You used the word 'ideal', so beloved of ancient Greek philosophers.

In Physics this means possessing certain specific properties as in ideal gas or ideal conductor.

But in Mathematics, an ideal is a particular algebraic structure which has even more variation because you may have a left ideal or a right ideal !.

Edited July 8, 2022 by studiot

[mistermack]

Surely mathematics is judged by the same standards as everything else. Does it produce results that are verifiable in the real world? 

Admittedly the concept os zero and infinity might be troublesome to verify, but so long as they don't produce nonsense results indirectly, we can work with them.