Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 02:39:15 +0000
Subject: Re: math, is it just physics? (just mathematics)
Newsgroups: sci.math
References: <vnbg90$200p5$1@dont-email.me> <vnbmoe$219pc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnbrl3$21t1g$1@dont-email.me>
 <pzSdnWsQK6hB4QT6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <vnc392$230ti$1@dont-email.me>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 18:39:09 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <vnc392$230ti$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <UvidndKYTLlOCQT6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 117
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-R6vQ4ONg36/JiFGLrQMJmkQPL17AHO4ZxwDoTieRM6igCGnkwE843eQca+/DTBpG4zzpq01mpAqt0hV!U1+udnGMI44PCe2IDogNYVe+/ZqLHNA3HXLea3ahibgMEZEs8YtUwQLReHJGy1LBzC2uNJRSV9fe!hQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 7059

On 01/28/2025 06:20 PM, sobriquet wrote:
> Op 29/01/2025 om 01:56 schreef Ross Finlayson:
>> On 01/28/2025 04:10 PM, sobriquet wrote:
>>> Op 28/01/2025 om 23:46 schreef FromTheRafters:
>>>> sobriquet wrote :
>>>>> We often hear claims that math has nothing to do with reality and is
>>>>> just something that exists in our imagination or some platonic realm
>>>>> of idealized forms.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance in the intro to this recent yt contribution:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzuDSTamzrE
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand there seems to be mounting evidence that the
>>>>> patterns in physics match up in intriguing ways with abstractions on
>>>>> a conceptual level.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OxVsVUesSc
>>>>>
>>>>> So in a way one could claim that concepts like integers and their
>>>>> properties and relationships can be more or less empirically observed
>>>>> in the behavior and properties of things like elementary particles
>>>>> such as electrons or fields.
>>>>
>>>> There's also this:
>>>>
>>>> https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
>>>
>>> I'm learning german and french, so I ask chat gpt to pronounce every
>>> sentence in english, german and french. It does so with a very strong
>>> english accent. I tell it to get rid of the accent. it does so and it
>>> sounds pretty good. However as soon as I paste the next paragraph, the
>>> strong english accent is back. I remind it that I want it to pronounce
>>> the text without an accent and it complies. However, as soon as I go
>>> to the next paragraph, the strong accent returns.. AAARRRRggh!!!!
>>
>> I often say that a strong mathematical platonism arrives at
>> numbers are quite concrete and that there's a theory with
>> both a strong mathematical platonism, AND, a strong logicist
>> positivism, quite all scientific with an ontology for the
>> empiricist mind, yet still fundamentally founded by a continuous
>> thread of a theory of logical and mathematical truth.
>>
>>
>> Consider something like Derrida on Husserl's pre-geometric
>> and pre-scientific world, with regards to why these quite
>> logicist-positivist minded thinkers have it very strongly
>> so that mathematics is always present, then also as with
>> regards to "the ubiquitous success of mathematics in physics".
>>
>> Then, the mathematical universe hypothesis of a sort,
>> also has that physics is just mathematics.
>>
>>
>
> But we don't want to confuse the map with the territory.
> It's a bit like arithmetic and the claim that computers are not really
> doing arithmetic, since only biological organic beings like humans can
> do real arithmetic and computers are only simulating doing arithmetic,
> but they are not really doing arithmetic. So only a human actually is
> able to add 5 and 7 and produce the sum of 12 and if you use a
> calculator or computer, it looks like it's doing the same thing and it
> even comes up with the same result 12, but it's not really doing
> addition, just simulating the mental process of addition that only a
> human being can perform.
> This seems a nonsense claim, but that is similar to nonsense claims that
> computers can't really be conscious or subjectively experience things,
> even if they end up with exactly the same results as a human claiming
> he's conscious and not a philosophical zombie like a computer that can
> only behave like it's conscious without actually being conscious or
> having a subjective experience. So what is the difference between
> simulating addition and actual addition if we end up with identical
> outputs for a given combination of inputs?
> Can a simulation or model be identical to reality? I would say yes.
> You can do a simulation of the formation of ice crystals with actual
> water as a model where you control the circumstances to simulate nature
> outside the laboratory. As opposed to doing a computational simulation
> of water with some kind of math that models certain aspects of water to
> explore the way water undergoes a phase change from liquid to solid.
>
> In any case, if we unify math and physics, it would just be two sides
> of the same coin.. so it's kind of like claiming everything is energy,
> since matter is just a form of energy or claiming that everything is
> matter, since energy is just a form of matter.
>
> Regarding the unreasonable effectiveness of math in the natural sciences
> I would say.. well, you wouldn't have expected that, would ya? We
> abstract from reality to obtain math and lo and behold, the math is very
> suitable to model reality.

Perhaps an idea to consider is that there is
any theory, at all, with no paradoxes, at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwX9Y2oEtHs

Then, there's still allthe humans lives in the human condition,
and like other finite thinking feeling beings, may attain to
the infinite and continuous in the mathematical, yet there is
one that is to be attained to.

Relaying subjectivity and inter-subjectivity if considered
"higher thinking of the human condition" with regards to
humans being the highest thinkers in this world, or at
least of a sort of at least capable thinker, makes for
some reading of Cassirer reading Montaigne.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN9UDFJ1wlg&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=25


There are many _kinds_ of energy and _in_ the entelechy,
it's fair to say that conflating energy with regards to
conservation in a given space of content by continuity
the entelechy, it's similar with arithmetic, for example
having increment versus division instead of iteration and
inverses, arriving at the modular in the middle.