Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ?

[swansont]

The said opening statement :-

 

You are correct, if read in isolation. However the first posting associated with the title , explains the context in some detail.

 

The statement does not say that " Observation and Hypothesis should lead. ,but asks the question should.....?

 

The tone is that it's one or the other. It's not. A false dilemma is created by asking this.

 

 

The sentiment behind the question, was that , there appears to be a disproportional emphasis on maths as a source of advancement in breaking new boundaries in physics, where it is proposed that creative conceptual thinking could possibly provide leading new avenues of research , which would not be found by more logically based , maths orientated research. Ground Breaking Intuitive ideas, quite often do not come from a current , subject based line of research, but often come from cross discipline , observation and thinking.

This has echo,s of the way that genetic mixing in reproduction can produce improved characteristics in the next generation. !

 

This falsely compartmentalizes the process. By what argument does it appear that there is too much emphasis on math? Where is the evidence that "creative conceptual thinking" and "cross discipline , observation and thinking" aren't happening?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The tone is that it's one or the other. It's not. A false dilemma is created by asking this.

 

 

 

This falsely compartmentalizes the process. By what argument does it appear that there is too much emphasis on math? Where is the evidence that "creative conceptual thinking" and "cross discipline , observation and thinking" aren't happening?

 

I do mean to get back to you on this one. But there has been the meteor strike which seems to have overshadowed other discussions.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I do mean to get back to you on this one. But there has been the meteor strike which seems to have overshadowed other discussions.

 

EEk ! We were having a good discussion here , but a visitation of a Meteor and an Asteroid , all on the same day. Going off like half a dozen Nuclear bombs, rather deviated my concentration, on the discussion on hand. Now where were we. "The man with the pistol" was saying how semantics were causing a bias. And Michel and consistency ( who seems to have gone missing ) were extolling the virtues of creative ideas.

 

What say you !

Edited April 11, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[StringJunky]

The statement does not say that " Observation and Hypothesis should lead. ,but asks the question should.....?

 

The sentiment behind the question, was that , there appears to be a disproportional emphasis on maths as a source of advancement in breaking new boundaries in physics, where it is proposed that creative conceptual thinking could possibly provide leading new avenues of research , which would not be found by more logically based , maths orientated research.

Why do you assume conventional scientific ideas disproportionately originated from mathematical inspiration just because they are described mathematically in the final paper?

 

In a field of study like physics where the subjects under observation are mostly beyond ordinary human sensory detection we can only describe things in terms of numerical parameters measured by instruments which necessarily dictates a mathematical description to make any sense and meaning of the data those instruments present. Also, even in the macro world we can't calibrate human beings to experience phenomena in the same way that we can instruments; an essential prerequisite of a good scientific result is repeatability.

 

Your desire for the way you wish science to go will produce nothing meaningful or durable and will produce much misinterpretation and confusion, especially across international languages. Maths is the language of science because it works. The beauty of the scientific process is that if maths didn't cut the mustard it would have been rejected long ago as the de facto means of scientific expression.

 

Ground Breaking Intuitive ideas, quite often do not come from a current , subject based line of research, but often come from cross discipline , observation and thinking.

 

If there were no math's there would be only limited cross-discipline co-operation because they wouldn't understand each other's professional lingo or at the very least would not facilitate a fluid information exchange like maths can.

Edited April 11, 2013 by StringJunky

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Why do you assume conventional scientific ideas disproportionately originated from mathematical inspiration just because they are described mathematically in the final paper?

 

In a field of study like physics where the subjects under observation are mostly beyond ordinary human sensory detection we can only describe things in terms of numerical parameters measured by instruments which necessarily dictates a mathematical description to make any sense and meaning of the data those instruments present. Also, even in the macro world we can't calibrate human beings to experience phenomena in the same way that we can instruments; an essential prerequisite of a good scientific result is repeatability.

 

Your desire for the way you wish science to go will produce nothing meaningful or durable and will produce much misinterpretation and confusion, especially across international languages. Maths is the language of science because it works. The beauty of the scientific process is that if maths didn't cut the mustard it would have been rejected long ago as the de facto means of scientific expression.

 

 

If there were no math's there would be only limited cross-discipline co-operation because they wouldn't understand each other's professional lingo or at the very least would not facilitate a fluid information exchange like maths can.

 

The loyalty to mathematics as the language of physics is clearly at the center of your Paradigm, which is to be admired from a loyalty point of view. But my reason for the original question, was:- What if an extended paradigm is possibly required, in order to make further discoveries , which are NOT ATTAINABLE by the predictive, repeatable, causative way that most Maths relies on.

This , in the way that flight required a whole new approach to movement. This when land based motion , to air based motion is required, or water based motion for that matter.

Could it be that statistical , and emergent principles need to be enlisted to make progress, or some yet unused methodology ( if that is not a contradiction in terms.

 

Please do not interpret this as an all one or all the other attitude on my part. Clearly Maths has been, and is, a serious bedrock to science. I am merely posing an avenue which may have an enhancement to future discoveries.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Again: you state this as if it is not happening. Why do you think it isn't?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Again: you state this as if it is not happening. Why do you think it isn't?

Put that gun away ! Your Question ! I don't. think it isn't. With many of my comments on these sort of matters, I am trying to 'inspire' if that is not too strong a word,( probably is , maybe ' encourage' might be more fitting, though I do want to put a bit of urgency behind it. ) toward breaking ( occasionally )( or by some individuals ) the traditional loyalties to the status quo . Why, because it is endemic in the discipline of science. namely to progress slowly and cautiously, making sure we don' t say anything that is not proven, supported by fact and experiment etc etc. Absolutely necessary when designing a Bridge , or Air liner, or medical equipment etc etc. BUT I must restate that if we had not had some adventurous thinkers, like Marconi, Tesla ,Bohr ,etc etc Einstein for that matter ( although he seems to be getting a battering lately ) , even though often wrong in some of their ideas. Surely we can see with all the vastness before us, the gap of unknown-ness widening , as we speak , the NEED to have some individuals ( like scouts on horseback in the days of the wild west) going before the main body of science and looking over the horizon for ' pastures greener ' ( I do like that word ...HORIZON )

[swansont]

Put that gun away ! Your Question ! I don't. think it isn't. With many of my comments on these sort of matters, I am trying to 'inspire' if that is not too strong a word,( probably is , maybe ' encourage' might be more fitting, though I do want to put a bit of urgency behind it. ) toward breaking ( occasionally )( or by some individuals ) the traditional loyalties to the status quo . Why, because it is endemic in the discipline of science. namely to progress slowly and cautiously, making sure we don' t say anything that is not proven, supported by fact and experiment etc etc. Absolutely necessary when designing a Bridge , or Air liner, or medical equipment etc etc. BUT I must restate that if we had not had some adventurous thinkers, like Marconi, Tesla ,Bohr ,etc etc Einstein for that matter ( although he seems to be getting a battering lately ) , even though often wrong in some of their ideas. Surely we can see with all the vastness before us, the gap of unknown-ness widening , as we speak , the NEED to have some individuals ( like scouts on horseback in the days of the wild west) going before the main body of science and looking over the horizon for ' pastures greener ' ( I do like that word ...HORIZON )

 

You say you don't think it isn't, and then follow that up immediately with an implication that there are no scientists doing this sort of thinking.

 

And what do you know of the situation? You have personally witnessed all scientists not doing this, all of the time? Or is this (as it sounds) just argument from ignorance: you aren't aware of it happening, so it must not be happening.

[StringJunky]

You say you don't think it isn't, and then follow that up immediately with an implication that there are no scientists doing this sort of thinking.

 

And what do you know of the situation? You have personally witnessed all scientists not doing this, all of the time? Or is this (as it sounds) just argument from ignorance: you aren't aware of it happening, so it must not be happening.

 

I think probably Mike and others think this way because scientific ideas are almost invariably presented in a mathematical format but they don't realise this is not necessarily the way the initial ideas were conceived.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You say you don't think it isn't, and then follow that up immediately with an implication that there are no scientists doing this sort of thinking.

 

And what do you know of the situation? You have personally witnessed all scientists not doing this, all of the time? Or is this (as it sounds) just argument from ignorance: you aren't aware of it happening, so it must not be happening.

 

WoW ! I managed to duck the bullet but got mauled by the claws. Ouch ! I need to go and lick my wounds.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mellinia]

What if an extended paradigm is possibly required, in order to make further discoveries , which are NOT ATTAINABLE by the predictive, repeatable, causative way that most Maths relies on.

That's theology for you.

If this world isn't predictable to some extent, then the scientific method, is void. because it ain't predictable.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

That's theology for you.

If this world isn't predictable to some extent, then the scientific method, is void. because it ain't predictable.

 

There are some Blogs on at the moment by Swansot & Ajb about Maths in relation to everything else. Quite interesting .

 

 

A way I can visualize the coexistence of the dreaded maths with everything else is.

 

The maths is like the Skeleton in the human body. Ridged . Holds everything else in some form of useful and attractive form. But the skeleton is not very attractive or pleasant to most people, and a bit scary .

 

I prefer looking at the whole person and what they do , aware as I am that they would be a Blob of useless something without their skeleton. However prefer to not dwell on it (Maths as Skeleton) too long, lest I get -Scared -

 

 

 

If my Analogy is right, or how most people including a lot of other scientists would prefer to work, Then my original Question

 

 

Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ?

 

Is answered. Generally ( recognising that down inside is some unattractive, yet essential maths , skeleton ) most people would prefer this accepted, but left to the bone and skeketon specialist, The rest of us, possibly might like to work with the more palatable person . ( at all times aware and appreciative that the bones are not far away beneath.

 

Its probably fair to say we must have both, but lets keep the scary bit covered up ! Certainly while the Blue Sky Researchers are enjoying their lovely Blue Sky.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mellinia]

Maths is not rigid. New mathematical tools are found to explain physics. And it's definitely not scary. You don't find something you got use to, scary, anyway. It's just that it's alien to approach physics, and indeed sciences from mathematics. It's not strange since once the maths is out, it might be able to point out some things that we may have neglected. I believe that we are able to agree that human error is way much larger than computational error?

 

A fine and simple example is the displacement current predicted by Maxwell during his formulation of the classical EM equations.

 

The predicted displacement current was only proven a few years after Maxwell passed away by Hertz, in the form of radio waves.

At times when we lack the equipment or ability to observe phenomena, mathematics is the way we can explore uncharted theory of science.

[robinpike]

Maths is not rigid. New mathematical tools are found to explain physics.

Shouldn't that be ...New mathematical tools are found to PREDICT physics?

[swansont]

Shouldn't that be ...New mathematical tools are found to PREDICT physics?

 

Both.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Shouldn't that be ...New mathematical tools are found to PREDICT physics?

 

I like it. You are a perceptive contributor !

 

Mike

[Mellinia]

Shouldn't that be ...New mathematical tools are found to PREDICT physics?

One of Newton's genius was in that he managed to use mathematics as a tool to explain physics. Calculus is created and it can explain Kepler's laws of planetary motion and predict that the gravitational force falls off as the square of the distance between the center of masses.

In the case of Kepler, it's observation first. Since Kepler already has telescopes and massive amount of data.

In the other, it's mathematics first. He couldn't really measure gravity on another planet at that time, right?

Edited April 14, 2013 by Mellinia

[John Cuthber]

One potential problem with using maths alone to describe the world, is that you might describe a world which is possible, but not the one we inhabit- like this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

Without reference to experiment you have no way to know if you are doing the right maths for flatland, and learning nothing about reality.

So, no, on it's own maths isn't "safe" in the sense that it could lead you massively astray.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

One potential problem with using maths alone to describe the world, is that you might describe a world which is possible, but not the one we inhabit- like this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

Without reference to experiment you have no way to know if you are doing the right maths for flatland, and learning nothing about reality.

So, no, on it's own maths isn't "safe" in the sense that it could lead you massively astray.

 

What you are saying would tend to support the original proposal of the thread as well as Post 1 quoting ajb's reference. If this is the case , could this be a problem with STRING Theory and MULTIVERSE Theory . Mathematically possible yet no way of knowing if either or both are REALITY ( UNLESS PROOF BY EVIDENCE/ EXPERIMENT ) ? ? ?

Edited April 14, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[John Cuthber]

Post 1 said

"Recent comments by an Astronomy orientated Researcher Dr Paul J Abel (Patrick Moore Sky at Night Fame ) (see ajb blogg), has posed questions as to whether maths should be leading the resolution of the ( Quantum Gravity issue), which it is, in string theory and other maths orientated research., Yet ( he indicates ) what is really required is a New Einstein ! Observers, Thinkers , and Hypothesis, to lead the field and then the mathematicians can follow and tidy up the details. !"

I'm not sure what that means.

 

The answer to the question is that,mathematics alone cannot possibly know what is right, it can just rule out things which are impossible.

However there's a problem with the question in the title. It asks if it should be maths or a hypothesis.

But the hypothesis will be largely maths.

[elfmotat]

Mike, may I ask why you don't just learn the physics for yourself? You certainly seem capable and genuinely interested. However, from a lot of the posts I've read, you appear to favor obscure philosophy and even sometimes blatant crackpottery. Why not just buy a few relativity and QM textbooks? There are good free online resources as well. If your goal is to understand how nature works, then you should make a real effort to understand how nature works.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Post 1 said

"Recent comments by an Astronomy orientated Researcher Dr Paul J Abel (Patrick Moore Sky at Night Fame ) (see ajb blogg), has posed questions as to whether maths should be leading the resolution of the ( Quantum Gravity issue), which it is, in string theory and other maths orientated research., Yet ( he indicates ) what is really required is a New Einstein ! Observers, Thinkers , and Hypothesis, to lead the field and then the mathematicians can follow and tidy up the details. !"

I'm not sure what that means.

 

The answer to the question is that,mathematics alone cannot possibly know what is right, it can just rule out things which are impossible.

However there's a problem with the question in the title. It asks if it should be maths or a hypothesis.

But the hypothesis will be largely maths.

 

I suppose , seeing as I started the thread, I should explain what I meant. However I must say my thoughts were prompted by Ajb's refs ( not that I am blaming him ).

 

Firstly, whether rightly or wrongly, I do not automatically think an hypothesis needs to include maths. ( aware as I am of a previous post that I made about skeletons making up structure. I may need to eat my words. ).

 

So to me , an Hypothesis is as a result of a series of observations, noticing threads, patterns and outcomes . This followed by a fair amount of thinking , reflection, possibly experimentation and possibly discussion with colleagues. Then if there is the making of an idea that just won't go away : Then an Hypothesis can be proposed which may or may not include any maths. !

 

Unlike Tegmark I personally do not believe that maths is at the root of everything. I think ( only think ) that something far more fundamental is at the root. Both mathematics which we 'construct' and 'language ' that has historically been changing.are not the root. Concepts that can be described by words and/or/both Maths, are a woolly image of Bedrock. I am not sure what bedrock is yet . I would love to know , and will go on looking. ( I think Plato had this problem with shadows on cave walls and perfect geometric shapes existing in some protected zone ). i am not suggesting this , but i think maths ( as it stands ) may limit our progress to expanding discoveries. So I was proposing that hypothesis from observation might be more suitable to LEAD IN FRONT .

 

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Elfmotat : I think you must have been writing at the same time as me. I will need to respond to you separately . Ok.

. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited April 14, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[cladking]

Nature is the root of science which is observation. Logic and math are puny tools we use to model nature. Since there is a sort of symetry and logic to nature they are actually fairly effective at guiding the observer toward more accurate models. We tend not to see such things because we've lost sight of nature and science. We may well be approaching the limitations of our ability to model nature using current metaphysics.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Nature is the root of science which is observation. Logic and math are puny tools we use to model nature. Since there is a sort of symetry and logic to nature they are actually fairly effective at guiding the observer toward more accurate models. We tend not to see such things because we've lost sight of nature and science. We may well be approaching the limitations of our ability to model nature using current metaphysics.

 

Fairly wise words I would say. Most of it. Not too sure what you mean by the last bit :-

 

 

Cladking said

We may well be approaching the limitations of our ability to model nature using current metaphysics.

 

I for one am constantly trying to model nature from both current understanding and observation. Not sure what is wrong with that. Or why I need to reach a limit until the last vestige of the cosmos is modeled ?

 

 

elfmotat said

Molecule

• 
• Senior Members

 

• 483 posts

Posted Today, 11:41 AM

Mike, may I ask why you don't just learn the physics for yourself? You certainly seem capable and genuinely interested. However, from a lot of the posts I've read, you appear to favor obscure philosophy and even sometimes blatant crackpottery. Why not just buy a few relativity and QM textbooks? There are good free online resources as well. If your goal is to understand how nature works, then you should make a real effort to understand how nature works.

 

I have learned Physics,or at least up to a certain level. I do and have read many books on quantum physics. I am not sure what you mean by 'obscure philosophy and blatant crackpottery' A number of years ago I descided that as physics and quantum physics was developing many mysteries, wierdness and unexplained areas. That I would read right across the spectrum of many sciences , but particularly always focusing on physics/quantum physics. What I saw, see, and found is :

What you hear me say or write or think or speculate or touch on as absolute fact is what I saw as patterns , observations, ideas , possibly correct facts.

Now if this is judged as 'obscure philosophy and blatant crackpottery' , that is how you judge what I have seen, heard, experimented with, interpreted, and written about.

I personally think this is the all good stuff, or I would have wasted valuable time. However that is your choice.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[cladking]

I for one am constantly trying to model nature from both current understanding and observation. Not sure what is wrong with that. Or why I need to reach a limit until the last vestige of the cosmos is modeled ?

 

Archimedes said, "give me a lever long enough and I'll move the world". Of course this is hyperbole and metaphor because in the real world you need a fulcrum and support for the fulcrum. If there were support you would be crushed by gravity. But the concrete world is not the same as theory because theory is developed from experimentation in the lab and really only applies to the degree the definitions and axioms can be extrapolated to "real life". You can move huge objects with a lever and a steady force only under the conditions that allow it. You can move a 30,000 ton oil tanker or a railroad car but a lever of the lenght to move the earth would have a significant gravitational field of its own and be quite unwieldy. In theory a tool can do about anything but in practice every tool has its limitations defined by its nature. A lead pry bar might be ideal for some application but use much leverage or weight and it bends.

 

Metaphysics is the tool we use to operate science. Observation suggests that we are approaching the end of our ability to devise experiments to test theory. The tool has been used nearly to its limit yet we know only the tiniest percentage of nature's laws. This suggests we must invent a new tool or a means to extend or fortify the existing tool. I believe most of this will occur naturally through a sort of "fortification" (and already has to some extent) but this might be insufficient to greatly extend human reach. I believe we'll need a much more complicated metaphysics to go much further.