about maths: strictly speaking, off topic, but justified.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: doubts about tetrahedral packing in 3D is a solid packing #516 Correcting Math
Next: JSH:Twin primes probability correlation
From: tonyb on 14 Mar 2010 09:39 Apologies in advance for posting somewhat off topic, but I would like to address this questions to scientists only as I'm not interested in the view of Phil-Sci students in this particular instance. Its a fairly simple one. I'm studying physics and am okay with the scientific process - using maths to describe reality, supported by experiment. But then I start running into trouble and wanted to hear some other opinions. Which of this statements would you (as scientists) agree with the most?: 1. Mathematics is a language, with some really handy adjectives, which we use to describe reality. If experiment doesn't contradict the predictions of this description, then it is a useful description of reality. Things like electrons are only models and may/may not exist. Who knows? 2. Mathematics is used to describe real external entities. They really exist, and experimental physics helps us refine our understanding of these entities, allowing us to build a clearer picture of reality. 3. Something else, because I disagree with premise X implied within the above statements Cheers, TonyB
From: Uncle Ben on 14 Mar 2010 10:34 On Mar 14, 9:39 am, tonyb <tony.band...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > Apologies in advance for posting somewhat off topic, but I would like > to address this questions to scientists only as I'm not interested in > the view of Phil-Sci students in this particular instance. > > Its a fairly simple one. > > I'm studying physics and am okay with the scientific process - using > maths to describe reality, supported by experiment. But then I start > running into trouble and wanted to hear some other opinions. Which of > this statements would you (as scientists) agree with the most?: > > 1. Mathematics is a language, with some really handy adjectives, which > we use to describe reality. If experiment doesn't contradict the > predictions of this description, then it is a useful description of > reality. Things like electrons are only models and may/may not exist. > Who knows? > > 2. Mathematics is used to describe real external entities. They really > exist, and experimental physics helps us refine our understanding of > these entities, allowing us to build a clearer picture of reality. > > 3. Something else, because I disagree with premise X implied within > the above statements > > Cheers, > TonyB I would choose 2, although M does more than characterize entities; it can also describe processes. M is a kind of language that expresses some things much more precisely than other human languages, but aside from precision, it is just another language like the others and is used for similar purposes. Uncle Ben www.greenba.com
From: rabid_fan on 14 Mar 2010 13:19 On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 06:39:21 -0700, tonyb wrote: > > 2. Mathematics is used to describe real external entities. They really > exist, and experimental physics helps us refine our understanding of > these entities, allowing us to build a clearer picture of reality. > "They really exist ..." Science, currently, is MATERIALISTIC. It does indeed assume that the external world has an absolute existence. However, some quantum physicists may invoke an IDEALISTIC view of the world in which reality depends on the observing mind. "Mathematics is used to describe real external entities..." We must always be aware of the limitations of mathematics. It is based on ideal (not the same meaning as above) and perfect structures that cannot have physical existence. This ideal perfection of mathematics is necessary to provide the rigorous logical foundation for continued development, but even this foundation has been shown to be ultimately untenable (a la Kurt Goedel). "... allowing us to build a clearer picture of reality." Mathematics is a language but it is also much more than a language. A language serves to communicate and describe, but the overriding goal of mathematics is to PREDICT. We develop our mathematical "pictures" so that we can adequately determine the future behavior, and hence exert control, over a system of interest.
From: Uncle Al on 14 Mar 2010 13:53 tonyb wrote: [snip] > 1. Mathematics is a language, with some really handy adjectives, which > we use to describe reality. If experiment doesn't contradict the > predictions of this description, then it is a useful description of > reality. Things like electrons are only models and may/may not exist. > Who knows? 1) Roll yourself under an e-beam sterilizer and tell us electrons don't exist. 2) TV CRTs. 3) Electron microscopes. 4) SLAC. 5) Lightning. 6) The E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C car. 7) Electron paramagnetic resonance. 8) James L. Dye's electride salts; Na dissolved in liquid ammonia. 9) Woodward-Hoffman rules. 10) idiot > 2. Mathematics is used to describe real external entities. They really > exist, WP Thurston, "Three-dimensional manifolds, Kleinian groups and hyperbolic geometry," Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 6 357-381 (1982) GP Scott, "The geometries of 3-manifolds," Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 15(5) 401-487 (1983) > and experimental physics helps us refine our understanding of > these entities, allowing us to build a clearer picture of reality. Physical experiment is dead - too much risk. Only theory remains. Theory always publishes. > 3. Something else, because I disagree with premise X implied within > the above statements To criticize is to volunteer. idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Sam Wormley on 14 Mar 2010 13:53
On 3/14/10 8:39 AM, tonyb wrote: > I'm studying physics and am okay with the scientific process - using > maths to describe reality, supported by experiment. But then I start > running into trouble and wanted to hear some other opinions. Background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_mathematics |