5 ms·

In my opinion, a more interesting question is "is anything other than math real?" Is there anything that physically exists that is non-mathematical?

the_af 3y ago
Well, what do you mean when you say something that "exists physically" is "mathematical"? Depending on your answer, the answer to your question could very well be "everything".
- ants_everywhere 3y ago
  For example, we could ask whether anything that we think of as "existing" would be missed by simulating the equations of physics with the empirical starting conditions of our universe. There are real limits in what humans know about the universe. But it's possible in theory that everything that is "real" follows from some differential equations.
  - the_af 3y ago
    In theory, maybe. I don't think our models of the universe are anything other than imperfect but useful approximations though. Could your question be rephrased as "take the real world, with its things we don't have an accurate model of (which is most of them). Would we notice if we replaced this universe by a tidier one, perfectly described by a math model?". It's an interesting, scifi question alright. I don't know if it has an answer.
cool_dude85 3y ago
What would it mean in this context to be "non-mathemtical"?
- ants_everywhere 3y ago
  I mean that it can't be completely described by mathematics
  - the_af 3y ago
    Can reality be completely described by mathematics, or is every model just an imperfect approximation?
    - dagw 3y ago
      Alternatively, if mathematics cannot, yet, completely describe reality, it is only because our understanding of mathematics is an imperfect approximation of 'true' mathematics. As our understanding of mathematics improve our descriptions and models of reality will improve asymptotically.
      - the_af 3y ago
        I don't think there's any evidence of this. First, what would our understanding of mathematics improving look like? Mathematics is an abstraction. Does such a thing as "true" mathematics even exist? Second, what evidence is there that improving our understanding of maths will asymptotically improve our models of reality? There really is no evidence of this! Seems like a wild logical leap.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
andrewprock 3y ago
This is a curious statement. Mathematics is a description, not a prescription. When Newton says that the path of a projectile is parabolic, he does not mean that it is in the shape of a parabola. He means that a parabola is a very good way to approximate the shape of the motion. The map is not the territory.
- ants_everywhere 3y ago
  > Mathematics is a description, not a prescription. But are you sure about this? If mathematics were not prescriptive then we should expect to see some evidence of that. So far nobody has demonstrated the existence of phenomena that contradicts the equations of physics. Usually we would call such phenomena "supernatural." It's possible in theory that nature doesn't have to obey mathematical laws. But if there's no evidence for it and if it doesn't explain any phenomena, then what is the argument for holding that particular belief?
  - proamdev123 3y ago
    Physics doesn’t obey mathematical laws. Mankind studied physics until we found mathematical formulas that describe nature reliably. There are countless math formulas that were discarded over the millennia after they were discovered to not adequately describe the physical phenomena they were intended to describe. Math is a collection of abstractions. Some are useful in explaining natural phenomena. Some are not.
  - the_af 3y ago
    > So far nobody has demonstrated the existence of phenomena that contradicts the equations of physics. Usually we would call such phenomena "supernatural." You cannot contradict a description; it's not a "law" in the legal/prescriptive sense. How would you even "contradict the equations of physics"? The real world exists and it's there; we use models to imperfectly describe (to varying degrees of success) its phenomena. In a sense, the real world contradicts those equations because they do not perfectly describe it; they are just an approximation.
  - andrewprock 3y ago
slmjkdbtl 3y ago
> Is there anything that physically exists that is non-mathematical? That's basically asking if there's true randomness.

the_af 3y ago

Well, what do you mean when you say something that "exists physically" is "mathematical"? Depending on your answer, the answer to your question could very well be "everything".

ants_everywhere 3y ago
For example, we could ask whether anything that we think of as "existing" would be missed by simulating the equations of physics with the empirical starting conditions of our universe. There are real limits in what humans know about the universe. But it's possible in theory that everything that is "real" follows from some differential equations.
- the_af 3y ago
  In theory, maybe. I don't think our models of the universe are anything other than imperfect but useful approximations though. Could your question be rephrased as "take the real world, with its things we don't have an accurate model of (which is most of them). Would we notice if we replaced this universe by a tidier one, perfectly described by a math model?". It's an interesting, scifi question alright. I don't know if it has an answer.

cool_dude85 3y ago

What would it mean in this context to be "non-mathemtical"?

ants_everywhere 3y ago
I mean that it can't be completely described by mathematics
- the_af 3y ago
  Can reality be completely described by mathematics, or is every model just an imperfect approximation?
  - dagw 3y ago
    Alternatively, if mathematics cannot, yet, completely describe reality, it is only because our understanding of mathematics is an imperfect approximation of 'true' mathematics. As our understanding of mathematics improve our descriptions and models of reality will improve asymptotically.
    - the_af 3y ago
      I don't think there's any evidence of this. First, what would our understanding of mathematics improving look like? Mathematics is an abstraction. Does such a thing as "true" mathematics even exist? Second, what evidence is there that improving our understanding of maths will asymptotically improve our models of reality? There really is no evidence of this! Seems like a wild logical leap.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

andrewprock 3y ago

This is a curious statement. Mathematics is a description, not a prescription. When Newton says that the path of a projectile is parabolic, he does not mean that it is in the shape of a parabola. He means that a parabola is a very good way to approximate the shape of the motion. The map is not the territory.

ants_everywhere 3y ago
> Mathematics is a description, not a prescription. But are you sure about this? If mathematics were not prescriptive then we should expect to see some evidence of that. So far nobody has demonstrated the existence of phenomena that contradicts the equations of physics. Usually we would call such phenomena "supernatural." It's possible in theory that nature doesn't have to obey mathematical laws. But if there's no evidence for it and if it doesn't explain any phenomena, then what is the argument for holding that particular belief?
- proamdev123 3y ago
  Physics doesn’t obey mathematical laws. Mankind studied physics until we found mathematical formulas that describe nature reliably. There are countless math formulas that were discarded over the millennia after they were discovered to not adequately describe the physical phenomena they were intended to describe. Math is a collection of abstractions. Some are useful in explaining natural phenomena. Some are not.
- the_af 3y ago
  > So far nobody has demonstrated the existence of phenomena that contradicts the equations of physics. Usually we would call such phenomena "supernatural." You cannot contradict a description; it's not a "law" in the legal/prescriptive sense. How would you even "contradict the equations of physics"? The real world exists and it's there; we use models to imperfectly describe (to varying degrees of success) its phenomena. In a sense, the real world contradicts those equations because they do not perfectly describe it; they are just an approximation.
- andrewprock 3y ago

slmjkdbtl 3y ago

> Is there anything that physically exists that is non-mathematical? That's basically asking if there's true randomness.