A question I would like to clear up is this. Does the Universe and the physical laws of physics happen because of math of QM or does the mathematics of QM just describe the behavior? — Mike
I guess now one has to wonder who or what has made the rules and the physical laws. I think that is probably another discussion entirely. — Mike
Is nature the language of maths or are maths a language of nature.
Science can’t answer this one. Neither can mathematics. But I like your question. Either answer, though, can result in quantity holding limitations upon what can be.
Myself, I’m of the opinion that maths are one of the many languages of nature. Nature’s Logos as some used to call it. — javra
I thought nature/reality used mathematics like computers use code. It would seem silly to think the mathematics is fundamental and reality is then built on top of it because where would it exist "fundamentally"? — intrapersona
This sounds similar to the concept of universals and how they have some existence outside of the concepts that "the form" is inhabiting in reality. IE "the perfect triangle exist abstractly even though there are no perfect triangles in reality" I call bs on that. — intrapersona
As far as I know the role of mathematics in science is by default considered to be that of modeling a certain part of reality: — Babbeus
There's an easy (yet correct) answer to this: no. Mathematics isn't the cause of anything. Mathematics is simply an invented language for thinking about relations abstractly. — Terrapin Station
So mathematics is a by-product of laws of physics which permit the representation of one physical system by another ... — tom
But the relations are certainly not invented. Certainly the way we add things, and the number system we use, and so forth - they're invented. But the relation described by 1+1 = 2 can't be invented. What do you take to be the connection between relations and causes? What's the difference?Mathematics is simply an invented language for thinking about relations abstractly. — Terrapin Station
But the relation described by 1+1 = 2 can't be invented. — Agustino
1+1=2 isn't a relation, it's a description of a relation.Why do you say that this relation can't be invented? — Metaphysician Undercover
Counting is an empirical matter. It's only in our world that we count 1, 2, etc. We learn to count by putting objects together, and saying, one, two, etc. I can imagine worlds - for example a world where objects annihilate when they come into contact - because say the world is made out of both matter and antimatter. Beings in such a world would imagine 0 when they imagine two. For them 1+1 = 0 will be an accurate description of their world. Or perhaps they'd say 1+1=0 and 1+1=2 are both true. (depending whether one object is matter and the other is antimatter or matter)It's called counting, start with one, add another one, and you get two. — Metaphysician Undercover
1+1=2 isn't a relation, it's a description of a relation. — Agustino
We learn to count by putting objects together, and saying, one, two, etc. — Agustino
So how did you get to know what 2 means?I did not learn to count this way, and I bet that you didn't either. I learned that two comes after one and three comes after two, and so on. I very quickly learned how to count to ten, and then to one hundred. There was no putting objects together when I learned to count. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, and we could make alternative orders, only that they're not so useful at describing our reality.What is described is the relation between these symbols, nothing more. It is order, pure and simple, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.. That is why mathematics is so useful, these symbols do not describe anything in particular, they have a position within a created order, and as long as the order is maintained there will be no mistake. So the symbols don't describe anything at all, that's why we have a zero, but they can be applied to anything, and that's why they're so useful. — Metaphysician Undercover
So how did you get to know what 2 means? — Agustino
Yeah, and we could make alternative orders, only that they're not so useful at describing our reality. — Agustino
How do you know what "one more than one" means?I told you, 2 means one more than one. Do you think that two has some other mysterious meaning different from this? — Metaphysician Undercover
No you weren't. You observed usage and reality and saw that one more than one is two. But you could have seen something different.The same way that I know the meaning of any common words by being taught by teachers, and observing usage. I was taught that one more than one is two, and that's how I know what it means. — Metaphysician Undercover
For a more down to earth example, maths can quantify and measure music so that computers can produce music, but the vibe/soul/meaning/etc. of music (often resultant of indistinguishable variations that together harmonize into an expressive whole) can never be mathematically identified, even in principle. — javra
The latter.Does the Universe and the physical laws of physics happen because of math of QM or does the mathematics of QM just describe the behavior? — Mike
I don't know how far into the "cause" you are talking about, but I'll tell you from the point of Quantum Field Theory.What is the cause of things like particle interactions and things like gravity and magnetism?
I am trying to understand what the interpretation for this question is. I hear some people say that math determines the behavior of the physical universe while others say that math just describes the behavior. Has this question been settled?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.