Dear Neil Bates ,

I agree with the essence of your essay: "math can tell us what works, but not what is real or why it is real". Then the next question arises: Why is it that math can tell us 'what works' and 'what does not work'? My essay is based on this question. The simple answer lies in the nature of 'working', which can be defined as a 'change'. For any change to happen, bodies or its constituents should physically move. Or it is motion that causes changes. Motion is a space- time relation that can be mathematically described. So all changes follow mathematical laws. So maths can tell us what works.

As pointed out by you, maths cannot say why a body has mass, why a body has volume, why a body attracts, why bodies can move. In my opinion, we have to distinguish between properties and laws. Once the bodies have the given properties, it is mathematical laws that decide how bodies change with time. Please go through my essay: A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics.

    Thank you, James. Good luck to you as well. I read your essay and posted a comment. I hope I correctly understood your overall conceptual point (which seemed more important to me than the details of your reformulations of math concerning field theory.)

    Jose, I appreciate your interest. I'll take a look at your essay.

    A very closely reasoned essay.

    I think you might want to consider the implications of operationalism (P. W. Bridgman, The Logic of Modern Physics.)

    Best, TOm Phipps

      Dear Neil Bates,

      I enjoyed your essay, starting with your comment "math can tell us what works, but not what is real or why it is real", a statement I completely agree with. I liked discussion following "but our critical question here is: what does it tell us about "reality"? By reality, I mean what the person in the street means: "stuff" that actually "exists," not just mathematical models like the ones used to prove this point."

      I have taken a little different approach to this same problem my essay here. My goal was to find "real" objects (in the sense that they can be modeled visually) that match the mathematical models of the particles of the standard model. I hope you get a chance to have a look and offer a rating.

      A well done and well thought out essay, best of luck, you deserve a good rating.

      Regards,

      Ed Unverricht

        Thanks, Tom, it's good to hear from you again after so long. Yeah, operationalism is preferable, but has its limitations. We just can't experimentally test "other universes" - yet, at least. Your own essay made me think, as usual.

        Thank you, Ed. I will look at your essay. Best.

        Dear Neil Bates,

        I very much enjoyed your essay, and its support for the intuitively obvious fact that we live in a 3-dimensional world. I will have to carefully review your arguments for 'EMI equivalent mass', but, given that these arguments lead to your equations (2) and (5) you very nicely derive the result D - 2 = 1 / ( D - 2 ) => D = 3.

        Thank you for the simple demonstration

        Your discussion of 'existence' and 'reality' is also very cogent and well argued, and also that "math and logic ultimately constitute a self-referential universe", working on "structure not essence", and incapable of reaching the level of substantial reality.

        You say, "all that mathematics can do for us, is make relative judgment about model worlds in terms of various internal criteria."

        I fully agree with your conclusions about 'reality' and 'mind', so I would like to focus on your statement about "relative judgment about model worlds...". You say [p. 7] "all that math knows and can tell us in effect, is about math. When we think it is telling us something about "the world", we are just finding out about the model that we are using."

        In my essay I discuss the oversimplified physical model of Stern-Gerlach based on precession in a constant field, which leads to a null result; 0 not ±1. This contradiction is the basis upon which Bell builds his model, with the well-known "logical" consequences. I investigate a physical model of Stern-Gerlach that does not immediately lead to a contradiction, and attempt to see where that takes us. I invite you to read my essay and welcome your comments.

        Best,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Edwin,

          Thanks for your comments. My argument about electromagnetic mass is somewhat complex but starts to come together for anyone with solid background who just follows along carefully. I appreciate that you are another of us, who realizes that math cannot just be glibly substituted as map for territory. There are many ways for the project to go wrong, both in terms of practical effect as well as deep questions of mind, determinism versus free action, etc. See my remarks about your essay at its link.

          13 days later

          Dear Neil,

          I have read your essay in the spirit of the Cartesian doubt with great interest. I totally agree with you:

          "Math and logic don't have the tools to reach beyond their realms and characterize the status of another existential level. Such systems can neither describe a more "substantial" realness per se, nor distinguish nor explain the high-level "accidents" of phenomenal existence - the apparent discriminatory actualizations of one (or more) mathematically-delineated possible worlds. Therefore, math cannot either describe what "concreteness" is, nor which if any model worlds should be manifested as "actual worlds." It cannot explain why any such transcendently "more real" world should be mathematically elegant or "simple," instead of messy and not effectively accessible through math."

          "All that mathematics can do for us, is make relative judgments about model worlds in terms of various internal criteria. It cannot answer existential questions, such as "why does anything exist (in the sense of being more than math)" or even if there is such a thing as "more." All that math knows and can tell us in effect, is about math."

          "Our world does not and cannot follow "from first principles" of any logical or mathematical sort."

          "We must transcend math and logic to grasp this."

          "If you do truly feel and know that the world is more than math, then it is, indeed - and so is your mind. I do not know what that "more" is, if it is so. We are free to decide what intuitions to trust in our quest for the horizon of what we and the universe are, and why. Mathematics cannot tell us about anything more than itself."

          Mathematics and Physics - the science without ontological justification (basification), as well as all "the fundamental knowledge". How to choose a path? Deeper limit ontology and dialectic in the spirit of Plato - Cusa - Hegel: "coincidence of opposites." We have now a lot of logic. To grasp the Universum as a whole (to connect Cartesian "res cogitans" and "res extensa") need the dialectical logic. Requires the deepest synthesis of all the accumulated knowledge, including Tradition. The "Occam's razor" should be extremely sharp.

          E.Husserl gave good tips in "Origin of Geometry": "Only to the extent, to which in case of idealization, the general content of spatio-temporal sphere is apodictically taken into account, which is invariant in all imaginable variations, ideal formation may arise , that will be clear in any future for all generations and in such form will be transferable by the tradition and reproducible in identical intersubjective sense. "

          I believe that only the deepest ontological turn of the fundamental science will provide an opportunity to get out of the "crisis of understanding", "crisis of interpretation and representation" to the new heuristics.

          I invite you to see my analysis of the philosophical foundations of mathematics and physics, the method of ontological constructing of the primordial generating structure, "La Structure mère" as the ontological framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge, the core of which - the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory and information - polyvalent phenomenon of the ontological (structural) memory of Universum as a whole. I believe that the scientific picture of the world should be the same rich senses of the "LifeWorld» (E.Husserl), as a picture of the world lyricists , poets and philosophers.

          Kind regards,

          Vladimir

            Vladimir,

            Thank you very much! Yes, we can't just put together an "explanation of the world" out of the thinking applicable to pure math itself (which does not tell us which of those should be picked out for further manifestation). We need to look at our experiences in the world, but it isn't clear yet just how all of this adds up. Since we experience the world through our minds, we have to acknowledge our own role in the way it seems to be. Naive realism is fundamentally wrong, and Kant was perceptive about the situation: we construct a lot of what we talk about as physical foundations. Phenomenologists realize this point, and how we must "bracket" out appearances instead of taking them for granted. This requires a lot of self-study and integration of physics, psychology, and philosophy.

            What I wrote might seem fanciful at first to more hard-nosed folks, but just consider how the intuitive concept of "flowing time" has been attacked lately by many physicists as a misrepresentation of what they claim is actually a fixed "block" instead of a traveling "now." So I talk both here and in my previous essay of the need to delve inward as well. However, unlike most of those considered the foundations, I don't think that any kind of mathematics can fully grasp the universe, because its special "realness" is not able to be described in terms of forms and quantity. I also argue that an AI (computational type) mentality could not grasp the distinction, and so our minds must be beyond such characterization.)

            In any case, we can certainly try to resolve more specific questions like, "why is our space three-dimensional"? Here I provided an argument based on self-consistency of EM rules in various dimensions, and show how things really only work out to conserve energy (for the electromagnetic mass) in three dimensions of space (taking time as granted.) Yes, this is a big question to grapple, and yet even this is separated by a great chasm from a question like, "why is there something instead of nothing?" The question about the nature of space is properly relative within the frame of some set of rules, where the ultimate question asks for where the framework comes from in the first place. We may or may not be able to answer such questions, but we can't even make an effort without deeply understanding ourselves and yes, our cultures and traditions first. Physics by itself cannot accomplish this. It must be a grand interdisciplinary effort and one that brings the world's various ways of doing, together.

            Vladimir, I will look at your essay soon in more detail and make some comments. Here is my preliminary observation: like the last time, I see you had some translation issues regarding which English word or phrase is best to state certain concepts. If I knew more Russian I could help, but alas I do not.

            PS: I apologize in general for my low activity in making comments etc. in this contest so far. More time will open up soon.

            Hi Neil--

            Your essay is excellent. I agree with your bottom-line: that math, being a closed set of rules, is best at handling self-consistency, but is unable to help us on matters "out there". For that, we need physics. Your analysis involving Eq. (2) was great--but why did you call the result "obscure"? Finally, I admit that I am a fan David K. Lewis and "Modal Realism". So, I was on your side from the start.

            Best regards,

            Bill.

              • [deleted]

              • Post #19

              William,

              Thank you very much. The paradox of math indeed is that it can tell us about anything else only through itself. If our world happens to parallel (is isomorphic to) some mathematical system, that same math cannot explain why it is the model for a world - unless the world literally is that mathematical system. Then it is a case of identity, not a mysterious echo. I don't believe the world is just math or that all possible worlds exist equivalently (as per David Lewis), but at least I appreciate that such viewpoints should be respected. Too many thinkers dismiss them as obviously wrong and absurd, able to be dismissed as "obviously wrong." Yet they don't even realizing the irony that believing in the specialness of concrete existence is akin to the "mysterian" idea of accepting conscious intuition for granted, and that the mind is beyond understanding in terms of matter. Ordinary physicalism is, ironically, a form of dualism itself - as recognized by critics like John Searle (and Lewis, in his way.)

              Now, that doesn't mean we have to accept there is no physical "extra," just that if there is, it is transcendent. (I think the world and our minds are "extra" together, and form their own dualism vis a vis math - a twist on the usual divisions.) The ultimate answers to our universe being the way it is, won't fall out of equations a priori. So, we have to do experiments. Although I did not propose an experimental test this time, I did analyze a specific physical question instead of just ranging over basic issues in the abstract. (Nothing wrong with that, but we need facts and insights to fit into the pattern formed by our perspectives and methodologies.)

              I said the result of Eq. (2) was obscure, because I see discussions of what physics might be like in 2-D flatlands (what atomic orbitals would be like, what 2-D life might be like as in the clever model-world fantasy The Planiverse" by A K Dewdney, etc.) These writers don't tell us that such a world would not "work" because of the infinite integral of potential energy between charges etc. I probably should have said, the implications of the integral are obscure (or shirked?) However, the shift of force exerted across a gravitational potential, really is obscure as best I can tell. You just don't see it discussed.

              I will look at your essay and make a comment or more, when time opens up as it will.

              Well, I got unwittingly logged out, and that happens to lots of us. The reply to William Parsons was from me.

              4 days later

              Dear Neil,

              Thanks for the arguments advanced in your essay.Where I do not seem to agree with you is your proposition that "mathematics cannot tell us about anything more than itself".

              What!Has mathematics ceased to be the language of nature?Are you making a nulity of the Pythagorean thesis that "numbers rule the world;and all is number"?Are you also making a nulity of the vauntings expressed by Galileo Galilei that "The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics"?Or are you in effect contradicting yourself with an allusion that NATURE IS EXCLUSIVELY MATHEMATICAL?

              Grateful,please oblige.

              Lloyd Tamarapreye Okoko.

              Dear Lloyd,

              Thanks for your comment. My statement about math is not as opposed as it seems, to the usual sense there is a parallel or isomorphism between math and the world. Math does only directly tell us about itself. Yet of course if a math structure (per Tegmark) corresponds to an ostensible "real world", the math models that world and tells us what will happen etc. What I mean is, two things. First, math can't tell us why there is (if there is) a concrete "real world" instead of MUH (there IS nothing but math structures), and second: why it would be the way it is. It cannot do the former because it has no resources to represent or explain special existential status beyond itself. It cannot do the second thing, because there are all kinds of math structures, and no way to privilege them in an existentially special way (that follows from the first. Hence, as Tegmark notes, we can't e.g. say there is a reason why octahedrons should be also correspond to "real things", but icosahedrons would not (an analogy to comparing model worlds.)

              Furthermore, I don't think a math model can even fully model a world anyway, in the sense of being a complete parallel. In other writings, I bring up issues like quantum randomness (not actually resolved by decoherence/MWI or Bohmian mechanics) and conscious experience. However, math is useful as a very close match, but like "symmetry" in our universe (our universe is not quite fully symmetrical in its laws), it is a near-miss. That may be frustrating or annoying to those who think it should be a complete fit, but what I think the world of experience has already showed us: such is life.

              I'll look at your essay in turn, now that I have more time opening up.

              Dear Neil,

              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

                OK Joe, I will go to your essay after awhile and give a comment.

                Hello Neal,

                Quite a number of good ideas to think about and take home from your essay.

                I got mixed up a bit on the inertia of charges. Are you suggesting the inertia of an electron for example is other than its mass?

                Then talking of mathematical models and "stuff" that actually "exists", in which category would you put Space. Is it a mathematical model or stuff that actually exists?

                In my essay., I look at the consequences where "stuff" are not eternally existing but can be created and can perish. You may want to read and comment. You may also want to volunteer your opinion on 'how to cut a line', either from a mathematical model or real world perspective.

                Regards,

                Akinbo