The scientific construction of the world by Luigi Foschini

"As Niels Bohr wrote, physics is

not the study of something given, but rather the development of methods to organise

and to measure the human experience [2]."

If that's true, then all we ask of science is to explain correlations in our inter-subjective reality, and not objective reality.

Dear Luigi,

I think you misunderstood the purpose of the contest. The question being asked is why do you think that mathematics(in physics) seems to represent physical reality(not physics) faithfully.

Also you said

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is."

Why? Physics is NOT like asking where does god come from.

Dear Sir,

Though after starting well you deviated from the topic, still it is interesting reading. We have extended your ideas.

Wittgenstein's definition of thinking is correct, but too sketchy, which you have elaborated. Thinking is a conscious action. Perception requires prior measurement of multiple aspects or fields and storing the result of measurement in a centralized system (memory) to be retrieved when needed. After we receive an external impulse, the signal is carried to the brain by the sensory neurons, where the inter-neurons communicate between different neurons in the body (operation of comparison with memory relating to similar past experiences - seen/read, heard, tasted, smelt, and felt). Unlike the sensory agencies that are subject specific (eyes can only receive electromagnetic radiation, ears only sound, etc.); the transport system within the body functions for all types of sensory impulses. This occurs against concentration gradients with the input energy like the sodium-potassium pump in our body, which moves the two ions in opposite directions across the plasma membrane through break down of Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Concentrations of the two ions on both sides of the cell membrane are interdependent, suggesting that the same carrier transports both ions. Similarly, the same carrier transports the external stimuli from sensory agencies to the cerebral cortex and back as a command. If the comparison meets a conclusive identity, the process ceases as perception. On the other hand, if it meets partial identity, it searches further, which is akin to inertia (continued motion after the initial impact that caused the initial motion ceases to operate). Thus, thought is the inertia of mind and follows physical laws as well.

You have pointed to a universal truth - "there is no instrument able to observe over all the broad frequency or wavelength band". Because of our limitations, we observe/measure in phases and then universalize or sum it up. But the whole may be more than the sum of its parts. Further, after our measurement, the object continues to evolve in time. These factors; apart from technicalities related to the process of measurement brings in uncertainty (and not because measurement disturbs the particle). For example, our measurement of galactic information is too insignificant in cosmic time scales. After the galactic blue-shift and galactic merger has been confirmed, the initial question: why there is no expansion in galactic scales or less; has become prominent. One possibility is that the universe is a closed system that is rotating on its own axis. Like planets around the Sun, we see them sometimes moving away to move close at other times. We have different explanations for inflation, dark matter and dark energy to solve the galaxy rotation problem.

Language is the transposition of information to another system's CPU or mind by signals or sounds using energy (self communication is perception). The transposition may relate to a fixed object/information. It can be used in different domains and different contexts or require modifications in prescribed manner depending upon the context. Since mathematics follows these rules, it is also a language. Mathematics explains only how much one quantity, whether scalar or vector; accumulate or reduce linearly or non-linearly in interactions involving similar or partly similar quantities and not what, why, when, where, or with whom about the objects. These are subject matters of physics. We have discussed all these in detail in our essay in this context. You are welcome to read it.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Dear Luigi,

Thank you for your contribution, I have brought up this question in the forum before, and also would like to ask your opinion in this regard. If we consider general relativity for spacetime curvature around mass (stellar bodies) that causes gravitational lensing, then I would argue for the plasma or dust that exists around luminous stars, and this plasma or dust regardless of its charge would bend the electromagnetic wave as the density of the plasma gets higher when getting closer to the star, which in its turn causes refraction of the light. This was not even touched in general relativity and no corrections are considered either. This means that explaining a physical phenomenon by math doesn't necessarily tells us the whole story. This is also addressed in my article.

Kind Regards

Koorosh

Yes, your trick is deviated from the truth.

Sadly,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Dear Luigi,

Congratulations for your essay,

With very sound ideas, clearly stated. I feel very much at home with your exposition.

I completely adhere to your position that we interpret changes of state (information) as signs, that empirical facts do not speak by themselves, nor really exist by themselves, but as a result of an interpretation.

You would probably like very much reading Uexküll, who was the first to clearly draw attention on the varied worlds that every animal builds out of a common environment. You would probably run against Gibson's theory of perception, which proclaims that signs are just out there around, to be picked by the sensory system: an extremely Platonist view, at the most elementary sensory level.

I eschew Platonist statements, like Tegmark's claiming the world is mathematical, not for philosophical, nor theoretical motivations, but for the mere reason that it is an absolute statement, an ontological position. To put it metaphorically, it is as if God had been whispering to the ear of the speaker. Absolute statement means there is no way to discuss it: it does not comply with Popper's criterion for scientificity. I would welcome a position like ``Look, suppose the world is mathematical, and see all the pleasant developments I can draw from that'', because that is a scientific stance.

The nuance... it is not a nuance. It is completely different. The first form impresses the layman, but is a lie. It is very harmful, because it incites to keep believing that science is not relative to a cognitive subject. That it is not made of linguistic statements that a man, shipwreck on this small drop of living planet in the cosmos, is trying to formulate about this wonder that he is there, alive, in the middle of the world.

I follow you: ``it is not possible to remove the human nature'' (not desirable either, our need, what we yearn for is things that make sense to us), and I now know that I follow Niels Bohr on this point, with a reference I did not know.

Warm Regards,