Physics versus Mathematics and Logic.

quote:
___________________________________________________________________________
It seems that at some point science may return to Platonist views, after faced by suceessive disasters.
___________________________________________________________________________

What seems, is distinct from what is. That was one point of Plato.

I would prefer the label "Realist" (granted, Realism is based on Aristotelianism) as it applies no only to matter, but also to "meaning," the underpinning of all things, including matter, insofar as we (constituents of the Universe) are the perceivers matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The question is - can mathematics and logic account for real world physics?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
You already negated this in your own contribution, but I would elaborate on this with a few more real world examples.

1. The process of counting, is that applicable to all things?

Let's try to count clouds for instance. One cloud and another could, which together form a new cloud. As for counting it would mean 1+1=1

2. Wel let's try for logic. The most basic premise of logic is the law of identity (A=A). Is that applicable to the real world?

Well take a stone, and wait a couple of millions years. The stone is gone, and became sediments. Or on a smaller timescale, take a proton. But even a proton is not a proton, since the nuclear force transforms it into a neutron, and then back to a proton. At no given fraction of time is a proton a proton. The only way to get around the problem is, when dealing with things that don't move or transform. But the basic quality of anything that exist and everything in the material world, is that is is constantly changing, transforming, and is in the proces of becoming. In other words, the only world in which a logical predicate as the law of identity has any validity is ... in a non-existent world.

Questionable theories are nothing new. Back when the Flat Earth Model was popular the theories were just as questionable and this is one of several reasons I use this model as a reference when thinking about current theory and how data is molded to suit the belief of the day.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The question is - can mathematics and logic account for real world physics?
To me the answer is rather no. Here's why - mathematics (and logic as a part of it) deal with two strictly different kinds of things, these two things are the operands (entities) and operations (processes), some operators may appear as both but not simultaneously. This entity/process juxtaposition is an inherent property of all human sciences, and it comes directly from the way we tend to perceive the reality; all human languages distinguish nouns and verbs in exactly the same way as entities and processes (or states), an attempt to deviate from that scheme leads to overcomplexity. In real-world, entities and processes constitute a duality and never are juxtaposed.
As an example one could consider our Sun; is it a blob of matter (entity) held together by gravity, or is it a thermonuclear reaction (process) suspended in magnetic field of plasma currents? Obviously it's both, and quite a lot of other processes along with that. The Solar system is much more of a process than an entity. Even a simple piece of rock is a process of memorizing and preservation of form and shape in time.
In fact, our formal logic is of the most questionable applicability to reality. We put current through a coil to make a cause for the effect of magnetic field, but the {current and field} are the effect of some other cause rather than cause and effect to each-other. One might argue that systems of equations help merge {cause and effect} and {entity and process} together, but in most cases we can't really solve those exactly and have to use very rough approximations, e.g. it's quite impossible to calculate the field of a complex antenna by using Maxwell's equations - they still use empirical calculations and intuition to devise those antennae.
One more nice example of cause and effect - the 3-dimensionality of our space and the inverse-square law of certain fields. What is the cause and what is the effect here? If space is postulated or somehow preconceived - it's the cause. If dimensionality is inferred from force laws and other interactions - it may be an effect of the laws of those interactions and, in fact, just be defined by those. And we are not guaranteed from finding some interaction of higher or lower dimensionality (EM - 4-dimensional, gravity and Coulomb - 3-dimensional, quantum non-locality - zero/unidimensional since located only in time). All this comes from trivial logic applied to reality, thus must be flawed in some very basic way, which conclusion is again just that - logic, but this time applied to formal concept, and hence must be true.

My point in writing all the above is to bring attention to the most unreliable part of any natural science - the limited template of human thinking applied in bridging reality to mathematical model and to the fact that all our mathematics is mirroring the nature of the same limited template of human thinking.

Maybe we could construct mathematics using real processes instead of stupid numbers? Maybe we could pick some "elementary" processes to use as digits and do "calculations" by putting them to interact in some basic configurations to be called "operators"?
Further, we could put the hardwired simulators of those "digits" and "operators" into our computers; that's instead of software-only models based on our current dumb-primitive theories...



<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Alan Cresswell

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The question is - can mathematics and logic account for real world physics?
To me the answer is rather no. Here's why - mathematics (and logic as a part of it) deal with two strictly different kinds of things, these two things are the operands (entities) and operations (processes), some operators may appear as both but not simultaneously. This entity/process juxtaposition is an inherent property of all human sciences, and it comes directly from the way we tend to perceive the reality; all human languages distinguish nouns and verbs in exactly the same way as entities and processes (or states), an attempt to deviate from that scheme leads to overcomplexity. In real-world,

entities and processes constitute a duality and never are juxtaposed.
As an example one could consider our Sun; is it a blob of matter (entity) held together by gravity, or is it a thermonuclear reaction (process) suspended in magnetic field of plasma currents? Obviously it's both, and quite a lot of other processes along with that. The Solar system is much more of a process than an entity. Even a simple piece of rock is a process of memorizing and preservation of form and shape in time.
In fact, our formal logic is of the most questionable applicability to reality. We put current through a coil to make a cause for the effect of magnetic field, but the {current and field} are the effect of some other cause rather than cause and effect to each-other. One might argue that systems of equations help merge {cause and effect} and {entity and process} together, but in most cases we can't really solve those exactly and have to use very rough approximations, e.g. it's quite impossible to calculate the field of a complex antenna by using Maxwell's equations - they still use empirical calculations and intuition to devise those antennae.
One more nice example of cause and effect - the 3-dimensionality of our space and the inverse-square law of certain fields. What is the cause and what is the effect here? If space is postulated or somehow preconceived - it's the cause. If dimensionality is inferred from force laws and other interactions - it may be an effect of the laws of those interactions and, in fact, just be defined by those. And we are not guaranteed from finding some interaction of higher or lower dimensionality (EM - 4-dimensional, gravity and Coulomb - 3-dimensional, quantum non-locality - zero/unidimensional since located only in time). All this comes from trivial logic applied to reality, thus must be flawed in some very basic way, which conclusion is again just that - logic, but this time applied to formal concept, and hence must be true.

My point in writing all the above is to bring attention to the most unreliable part of any natural science - the limited template of human thinking applied in bridging reality to mathematical model and to the fact that all our mathematics is mirroring the nature of the same limited template of human thinking.

Maybe we could construct mathematics using real processes instead of stupid numbers? Maybe we could pick some "elementary" processes to use as digits and do "calculations" by putting them to interact in some basic configurations to be called "operators"?
Further, we could put the hardwired simulators of those "digits" and "operators" into our computers; that's instead of software-only models based on our current dumb-primitive theories...



<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Common sense engineering will drown maths and physics. There are 7 over unity Quantum engines at www.thewebspert.com/cresswell/ . Each engine has a 'lock on' DARWINIAN selection frequency.

Alan Cresswell

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Here's why - mathematics (and logic as a part of it) deal with two strictly different kinds of things, these two things are the operands (entities) and operations (processes), some operators may appear as both but not simultaneously. This entity/process juxtaposition is an inherent property of all human sciences, and it comes directly from the way we tend to perceive the reality; all human languages distinguish nouns and verbs in exactly the same way as entities and processes (or states), an attempt to deviate from that scheme leads to overcomplexity. In real-world, entities and processes constitute a duality and never are juxtaposed.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Alan, it seems as though you have put a lot thought into this issue.
However, I disagree. I think mathematics is actually the purest form of logic and is accurate 100% of the time, <u>when it is used properly</u>. You mention that languages distiguish nouns and verbs in exactly the.... when in reality it is language that causes all of the problems. Mathematics is the only universal language which is understood by everyone exactly the same <u>when it is used properly</u>.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>All this comes from trivial logic applied to reality, thus must be flawed in some very basic way, which conclusion is again just that - logic, but this time applied to formal concept, and hence must be true.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Again, the flaw here is not in the logic but in the interpretation of the information. Logic can not be flawed, the only thing that can be flawed is the information coming in or the information going out. I just showed this in one of the other threads with regard to the Twins Paradox, misleading information is being provided which means misleading results. Furthermore, I have other threads where I have shown that "0" does not and cannot be equal to "nothing". My point here is that the problem in science is not in the Maths or the Logic but in the interpretations, definitions, and misuse of the processes.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Maybe we could construct mathematics using real processes instead of stupid numbers? Maybe we could pick some "elementary" processes to use as digits and do "calculations" by putting them to interact in some basic configurations to be called "operators"?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I thing because of the above reasons I mentioned is EXACTLY the reason as to why computers work in the first place, it's pretty hard to misinterprete "1 & 0's" and again, everywhere in the World "1=1" and "0=0". The problem you pose about reality goes back to the meaning of "0", this is the only place where there is flaw in the relationship between the processes and reality. In the "Real World" you can never have "something" and magically have it turn into "nothing" where in mathematics supposidly you can. THIS IS THE CONTRADICTION! For some reason people tend to forget that maths are based from "SETS" and once you have a {SET} of numbers they can NEVER mysteriously disappear.