Universe, Mathematics and Physics
To even postulate on this subject requires acceptance of the veracity of certain "givens" that I am not certain are true at all.
The first is the presumption that this is a "physical" universe: it may be a meta-physical one.
The second is "universe", what a strange, meaningless term. This term is as anthro-centristic and self limiting as most explanations of existence.
The third is "mathematical certainty" upon which I base my contra contention.
It is my contention that mathematics, that language constructed to describe the physical universe (universe being a mathematical construct) may be hopelessly faulty. It is like most special languages constructed for the perpetuity of various professions and presumes to hold some, or in this case, all innate truths. Each profession holds its own special language and truths, chemistry, engineering, music or even the language of the medical or legal worlds. For mathematics that truth is the constants and laws that it applies to itself and those it applies to the physical universe.
The difficulty with accepting the constant nature of mathematics is that we must observe two things in this universe that are purely alike, or purely different if you chose, not just similar or disimilar. That is, absolutely equal not predictively equal. So far that has not been done. It may be harmful that mathematical descriptions appear to cover gross generalities, equalities, and balances of our existence. It is also a problem that the notions of proof used in mathematics are a somewhat circular argument in that to be valid the prescibed rules of the language must be followed. You can not form a mathematical proof outside of mathematics.
Logically, if the language can not be validated by observing the two purely identical existences necessary to prove the languages own notion of constant or "truth" and proofs must be limited to what may be an erroneous presumption of language; we should presume that mathematics is a faulty tool. It may like a wrench of the wrong size still loosen the bolt but at the same time cause irreparable harm to the construction.
In order to create our destiny we may need to invent a new language. This may be extremely difficult. Those that protect the sanctity of the status quo will try to belittle us or kill us. But we, our species, may die anyway if we continue down this path if we are trying to prove ourselves against the wrong model.
To me the issue is our idea of technology which is based on this mathematical model. This form of technology may actually be our demise rather than our savior, a bright lure in a bubbling stream. We need a new alternative and more precise language than mathematics to test the validity of the mathematical model and assure future generations.
Off Balance
At a time towards the end
but not nearly the end
of the last century
In the way life time is measured
two still excitable
but not quite young men
sat in the bright but dusty Ear Inn
known for its beats and poetry,
It was a Stairway to Heaven certainly,
that filled in between raucous chorus
at the moment my crayons drew
the new altar
and the new god
and, yes,
the scene filled with
acolytes and priests,
such as you and I,
in bright primary colors
and waxy black.
While you could believe,
all I perceived,
was religiosity
not mathematical certainty.
Not willing to fall upon my dagger
but doomed to be defrocked
for failure to recite the mantra.
I suspected mathematics
deals in great generalities
not in precisions and facts
And if the universe
is not meta-physical?
Then the physical has no constant
simply predictive equality
nothing proven Absolutely,
as needs be,
neither you nor I,
not dull colors or white,
not even purest black
6 comments:
It will come as no small surprise that I disagree, at least to an extent.
Mathematics doesn't purport to describe the physical universe... universe in mathematical terms is a 'known universe' of possibilities.
It's a well known, and belabored point in any mathematical model, that any 'predictive' value, that falls outside the known parameters will be far less accurate, or more likely, entirely inaccurate, and, that any predictive value generated within the 'known universe' of the model, is only an estimate with varying levels of accuracy.
It's not math that's necessarily flawed, but more likely the improper application by those who seek to use it to prove their own flawed theories. Again, I contend it’s not the tool, it’s the user, we need to be suspect of.
Most knowledgeable mathematicians will readily admit that even the most advanced techniques are still only approximations of our ‘reality’, nothing more.
Once again though, you’ve brought forth a topic of interest to me. I would love to be able to quantify virtually everything. It’s been a long road for me to learn that those things most valuable will forever be, impossible to quantify.
What I am trying to get at is-
What if our dear mothers had not taken our pudgy little fingers and said, “look 2 and 2 equals 4” but instead had said, “all is unique, and contrary to our desire to create similarities; the beauty of existence is that the only constant is inconsistency, so that you may combine your fingers into groups of uniqueness that may resemble superficially other unique symbols but, in fact, are only anomalies of perception effected by time and evolution. Try taking these fingers of mine and create the same symbol: is it the same as your symbol, is it equal? Now put yours back together, is it the same as last time? Is it equal? See even the symbol, the abstraction, is not the same in your mind as it was last time! You may however find that you must accept the time honored tradition that this grouping is actually symbolic of the name “four”, just like Uncle Chico’s name is Chico and so is Nonna’s restaurant. Is Chico a person or a restaurant, or is a name the only similarity? Hopefully you will have the strength to reject the argument of equality at least in your heart as you might not be able to say such things in school. It will open a richer world to you and you will see the symbols are different for everyone and constantly beautifully changing.”
Oh my….that is what my mother said!
Well.. that explains a LOT! :)
"the beauty of existence is that the only constant is inconsistency"
Or, to put it another way... the only constant... is change.
I'm in agreement with you from an esoteric standpoint, but, I think it muddies the argument to claim all mathematics is flawed because we try to use it find some consistency.
Try paying a $20 lunch tab, with a $5 bill and explain to the wait-staff or the owner that "in your mind" one bill is as good as the other... Then again, I think I was with you when you tried that once!!
Greg, to me, the beauty of life, is in the living of it. Not in some formula, or some text book... it's in the smell of the ground at the Acropolis in Athens, or the sheer awe I felt standing there.
By the way... I'm totally with you on the "green fuel" thing... while, on the surface it sounds good, when you really examine the components it's a negative situation.
well I believe that Douglas Aadams took that bistro notion in reverse to power time travel...
and it is not the search for consitency or the formula that disturbs me...it is simply the presumption that 1 = 1 as a foundation for the language may be leading us down the wrong path and we haven't the meta-language to test the theory
and you know me I can find beauty in almost anything :-) well perhaps not in the mirror but nearly everywhere else...well actually everywhere (both physically and meta-physically) I've "seen" so far except that damn mirror :-)
think I need to write a poem...like
"Papa was a Rocket Scientist
whilst Mama did the math,
I'm just the little bastard
that took off
when they lit the fuse."
Heh-heh...
Yeah.. he may have.. but... it never worked (that we know of) in practical application.
1 = 1, only works within a specific context not in each and every instance.
One apple = One apple in a quantitive context, as does one pound of apples = one pound of apples... in a qualitative context it all falls apart... to me, there's no truth to: 1# Northern Spy = 1# Macintosh... They are simply not the same.
If you're saying we're wrong to attempt to apply math to qualitative constructs, I agree completely, it's a misapplication.
Also, 10=10 is only true in base 10 math... it also falls apart in every other context.
I know you find beauty everywhere my friend, and I hope you know that I'm simply play "devils advocate" in all of this... we live in a world filled with opposing realities... juxtapositions... inequalities...
It's in the discussions that answers are often uncovered!!
"I'm just the little bastard that took off when they lit the fuse."
Well that would explain the fireball exiting your arse! :)
Post a Comment