Natural Axioms

[foodchain]

What do you think about the idea of a logical language like mathematics with similar structure even buts its axioms and operators are derived from natural reality or nature. Such as how you have a multiplication function such as x, times, or 2(2) you would have such a structure for conservation of energy? I know that such are derived from use of math, but such themselves or natural phenomena or physical laws about the reality around us themselves are not stand alone axioms for use in math. I think a good example in the Planck constant, or reduced Planck constant. Its pretty much an axiom and its derived from reality around us or discovered in a sense.

 

Do you think that if enough time and people were to work on something like that we could have an entirely new math language with axioms derived from in a pure sense nothing but nature? Such as no more division, multiplication and so on, but more or less just how nature actually works modeled into math via axioms?

[Sisyphus]

I'm not sure I understand. It sounds like you're just describing physics?

[Xerxes]

What do you think about the idea of a logical language like mathematics with similar structure even buts its axioms and operators are derived from natural reality or nature.

Well, straight away you have a semantic problem. Axioms, by their very nature are not "derived" from anything.

Such as how you have a multiplication function {edit: operator, not function} such as x, times, or 2(2)

And what does 2(2) signify?

you would have such a structure for conservation of energy?

Huh?

.....are not stand alone axioms for use in math.

Once again, you misunderstand the meaning of the word "axiom" - axioms are, by definition, un-discoverable i.e. stand-alone.

that I think a good example in the Planck constant, ..... Its pretty much an axiom and its derived from reality

No, the Planck constant is just that - a constant that makes certain equations in science fit the data. This is almost the opposite of being an axiom. I'm guessing that some purists might even call it a fudge (I read that some did in the early 1900's)

[foodchain]

Well, straight away you have a semantic problem. Axioms, by their very nature are not "derived" from anything. And what does 2(2) signify?Huh?Once again, you misunderstand the meaning of the word "axiom" - axioms are, by definition, un-discoverable i.e. stand-alone. No, the Planck constant is just that - a constant that makes certain equations in science fit the data. This is almost the opposite of being an axiom. I'm guessing that some purists might even call it a fudge (I read that some did in the early 1900's)

 

2(2)=4 or it should right? I am sorry if I did not add the multiplicative symbol directly. Here, 2 x (2).

 

I know axioms are unquestioned assumptions and or truths used for all intensive purposes. I am simply wondering if instead we submitted what we do know now about stuff as those axioms into a language like mathematics what it would look like or if it could function, that is all. Such as a symbol for conservation of energy for instance like how we would use a / for division.

[Xerxes]

Ok.