/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13294939

283KiB, 1242x1600, Michael-Faraday-oil-canvas-Thomas-Phillips-National.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 01:39:35 2021 No.13294939 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13295762 >>13295764

>systematically constructs an entire area of physics with little to no math
Mathematics might model reality (i.e. it can predict things about reality) but it doesn't describe the nature of the reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 2021 04:14:12 No.13295659 Report

Quoted By:

wow thanks for the platitude, you stupid bastard...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 2021 04:18:38 No.13295671 Report

Quoted By:

qm retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 2021 05:09:01 No.13295762 Report

Quoted By: >>13295775 >>13295987

>>13294939
math is used in quantum mechanics, which define reality. maybe ur just a dumb?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 2021 05:10:13 No.13295764 Report

Quoted By: >>13295775 >>13296860

>>13294939
>the nature of the reality.
can you define this for us? What exactly do you mean by "nature of reality"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 2021 05:15:26 No.13295775 Report

Quoted By: >>13295887

>>13295762
Not OP, but it should be obvious that just because we invented mathematical objects to model reality (waves, wavefunctions, fields, strings etc.) doesn't imply that the fundamental nature of reality is actually these things. One could only ever say that the model is close enough to be indistinguishable from reality given current experimental limits.

>>13295764
A complete set of rules perfectly describing the evolution of reality. Mostly hypothetical - it isn't even obvious that such a representation could exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 2021 06:26:36 No.13295887 Report

Quoted By: >>13295986

>>13295775
>A complete set of rules perfectly describing the evolution of reality.
How could that be built without mathematics, if you don't count the extremely accurate models developed through mathematics, then what is even in the same category of providing some complete set of rules without as much contradiction or paradox?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 2021 06:57:44 No.13295986 Report

Quoted By: >>13296004

>>13295887
Metaphysically speaking there's no compelling reason to believe that the universe follows an internally consistent set of rules; a perfect model of reality could actually be (though it would presumably be impossible to determine) an infinite set of axioms rather than any consistent patterns. To put it another way, it will never be possible to ascertain that any mathematical model created isn't simply another epicycles-style approximation of reality.

In an abstract sense this would still be a mathematical model, but it would be completely isolated and inaccessible to mathematics as we know it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 2021 07:01:14 No.13295987 Report

Quoted By:

>>13295762
>Math defines reality
holy kek
Physishits need some fucking lithium inejctions.
MEDS take them

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 2021 07:08:04 No.13296004 Report

Quoted By: >>13296031

>>13295986
>an infinite set of axioms rather than any consistent patterns.
>infinities
>sets
>axioms
>patterns
That is all from the language of mathematics.

>To put it another way, it will never be possible to ascertain that any mathematical model created isn't simply another epicycles-style approximation of reality.
That is basic combinatorics and incompleteness, we know that even with a small number of axioms the complexity and permutations can easily accelerate such that there are going to be a large number of unfalsifiable truths and nondemonstrable falsehoods.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 2021 07:17:43 No.13296031 Report

Quoted By: >>13296054

>>13296004
Then we don't disagree on anything. If there is such a thing as a nature of reality then of course it could be described by mathematics, even if it only amounts to the collection of all true statements about reality.

It seemed obvious to me that OP was making a statement about current mathematical physics being a model and not necessarily any greater insight into the nature of reality, rather than claiming that there is something other than mathematics to describe reality with.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 2021 07:28:05 No.13296054 Report

Quoted By: >>13296863

>>13296031
Then the nature of reality is only describable, if incompletely, by mathematics and anything that can be described about the nature of reality can be done so mathematically.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 2021 13:33:50 No.13296860 Report

Quoted By:

>>13295764
The precise description about the substance(s) that exist,

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 19 Jun 2021 13:35:45 No.13296863 Report

Quoted By:

>>13296054
There is a form of semantics higher than that of mathematics which is able to give a description of the nature of reality.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches