I don't really know. — Shawn
Logic operates on the side of the theory. Physics operates on the side of the model. — Tarskian
Logic might more easily describe physics. — Fire Ologist
One of those possibly pseudo-questions which may be sophistry; but, in your opinion do you think physics describes logic? — Shawn
Does physics entail logic? — Fire Ologist
That would require a usable theory of physical reality, which we don't have. We just have a collection of stubbor — Tarskian
Isn't a lot of what you write based on the fact that science doesn't explain science, mathematics doesn't explain maths, and so on? — Wayfarer
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/godel-and-the-end-of-physics
Thus a physical theory is self referencing, like in Godel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent or incomplete. The theories we have so far are both inconsistent and incomplete.
It is an entire collection of such stubborn patterns that would be the counterpart of a theory in mathematical logic, on the condition that these patterns sufficiently hang together in one way or another. — Tarskian
And isn't that the healthy outcome? Some kind of mutual connection between maths and physics as cultures of inquiry? No need to make it a contest between logical rigour vs experimental validity. We have to come at nature from both these directions to grasp its truth. — apokrisis
No matter how well physics manages to study a plethora of stubborn physical patterns, it hasn't reached the stage at which mathematical logic can consider it to be a legitimate "theory". — Tarskian
Then, and only then, physics will be a legitimate "theory" in accordance with the definition in mathematical logic. — Tarskian
It is actually the ultimate goal of science:Says who apart from you? Can you cite some source for this opinion? — apokrisis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
A theory of everything (TOE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory or master theory is a hypothetical, singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe.[1]: 6 Finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.[2][3]
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/godel-and-the-end-of-physics
Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind.
And why would maths be a judge of how physics proceeds anyway. — apokrisis
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26134773-000-why-physicists-are-rethinking-the-route-to-a-theory-of-everything/
Why physicists are rethinking the route to a theory of everything
Physicists’ search for a theory that explains all reality in one framework appeared to have stalled. But now they are reinvigorating the hunt by exploring a wild landscape of abstract geometry.
That’s how physicists feel about the theory of everything, a putative “final” framework that would explain all reality in one fell swoop. This is the ultimate goal for physics, with Stephen Hawking once memorably writing that to find it would be to know “the mind of God”.
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/godel-and-the-end-of-physics
Thus a physical theory is self referencing, like in Godel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent or incomplete. The theories we have so far are both inconsistent and incomplete.
These are sweeping statements. But are they more than your own personal opinion? — apokrisis
They do not say it explicitly, but to me it is obvious that what they want from the ToE, is a "theory" that satisfies the requirements of the definition for the term in mathematical logic. — Tarskian
It is actually the ultimate goal of science: — Tarskian
One of those possibly pseudo-questions which may be sophistry; but, in your opinion do you think physics describes logic? — Shawn
I disagree. Science can exist even if such a theory is impossible. It isn't essential to science IMO, so it cannot be its 'ultimate' goal. — boundless
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-scientists-ever-find-a-theory-of-everything/
Wrangling the final (and, surprisingly enough, weakest) force, gravity, is a much harder task: Electromagnetism, as well as the strong and weak forces, can be shown to fundamentally follow the strange-but-calculable quantum rules. Yet gravity is, at present, best described by Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which concerns the universe at larger scales. These two frameworks do not play nice with each other; quantum mechanics and relativity effectively dictate separate and contradictory rules for the cosmos.
https://nautil.us/do-we-need-a-theory-of-everything-237888/
We need a theory of quantum gravity because general relativity and the standard model are mathematically incompatible. So far, this is a purely theoretical problem because with the experiments that we can currently do, we do not need to use quantum gravity. In all presently possible experiments, we either measure quantum effects, but then the particle masses are so small that we cannot measure their gravitational pull. Or we can observe the gravitational pull of some objects, but then they do not have quantum behavior. So, at the moment we do not need quantum gravity to actually describe any observation.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/49613/why-do-we-want-to-achieve-unified-theory-of-everything
During its early phase our cosmos was a world with extremely high energy enclosed in an extremely small domain of space. There was the very active interaction of particles and radiation in a highly curved spacetime. These phenomena cannot be explained by applying the theory of relativity and quantum field theory in separation. We need a unified theory, a theory of quantum gravity. Such theory does not exist up to now.
Since physicists insist on using logic, the whole of physics is an expression of logic. — frank
But why would that justify thinking physics should "describe logic"? — flannel jesus
Accounting uses math, does the study of accountancy "describe math"? — flannel jesus
One of those possibly pseudo-questions which may be sophistry; but, in your opinion do you think physics describes logic? — Shawn
Math originally came from accounting — frank
Still, just because one field of study uses another field of study doesn't mean the first field always "describes" the second field, does it? — flannel jesus
I was not expecting this reply. I thank you for humbling me. — flannel jesus
Math originally came from accounting, believe it or not — frank
Mathematics and accounting are deeply intertwined, but mathematics did not originally come from accounting. Instead, mathematics has a much broader and older origin that spans various domains.
Here’s a brief overview of how these fields are related:
Early Mathematics: The origins of mathematics date back to ancient civilizations such as the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Greeks. Early mathematics involved basic counting, measurements, and arithmetic. These practices were crucial for various practical activities like agriculture, trade, and construction.
Accounting Origins: The practice of accounting, especially systematic bookkeeping, has roots in ancient civilizations as well. For instance, the Sumerians developed one of the earliest known accounting systems around 3000 BCE, which involved recording transactions on clay tablets. Accounting was essential for managing resources, trade, and taxation.
Development of Mathematics: Mathematics evolved from these practical needs into a more abstract and systematic study. Ancient Greeks, such as Pythagoras, Euclid, and Archimedes, made significant contributions to mathematics that went beyond mere accounting and measurements, exploring geometry, number theory, and more.
Interconnection: As mathematics developed, it increasingly influenced and was influenced by accounting practices. For example, the development of algebra and calculus provided tools for more sophisticated financial analysis and modeling.
In summary, while accounting and mathematics are closely related and have influenced each other, mathematics as a discipline predates accounting and encompasses a much broader range of study than accounting alone.
Physicists are currently siting on two stubborn patterns that are incompatible: quantum mechanics and gravity. — Tarskian
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.