The complexity of the world is actually quite scary. — Shawn

The wrath of the mighty will soon be upon you. First cutting and then magnanimous. As the godly always are. :wink:

I don't really know. — Shawn

I'm dubious concerning the use of "cause" in physics, let alone logic. Others hereabouts use "logic" quite broadly, but I am disinclined to follow.

So again, logic is a way of setting things out, while physics is something that can be set out.

If you like, "physics describes logic" is ill-formed.

And that ought be an end to it, it will not be.

But I am doing the opposite. Social construction is what language allowed. (The paleoanthropology of language evolution is one of my special areas.) — apokrisis

Ah, good. I see what you were saying, now.

Two sides of the same coin. Deduce the particulars. Induce the generalities. — apokrisis

Yep.

Copied from an old thread:
From a pretty good book, The Overstory (Richard Powers, 2018), ISBN-10: 039363552X.
Page 132. "Life will not answer to reason. And meaning is too young a thing to have much power over it."
Page 432. "[R]eason is just another weapon of control. ...the invention of the reasonable, the acceptable, the sane, even the human, is greener and more recent than humans suspect."

If the subject of physics taken broadly is life, and logic taken broadly is the structure on which physics is built, then at a stretch they can be taken to describe each other, perhaps in the same way a game and the rules of the game "describe" each other, although to be sure they do not instantiate each other. The rules of chess encompass all the possible games of chess without themselves being one, and a game can provide examples of the rules in action, without being them.

The rules of chess encompass all the possible games of chess without themselves being one, and a game can provide examples of the rules in action, without being them. — tim wood

:up: :up:

Logic operates on the side of the theory. Physics operates on the side of the model. — Tarskian

That would be one way physics on the one side, could explain logic on the other. But then explanations themselves are theories, so how could physics itself describe anything - logic does the talking.

Logic might more easily describe physics.

Or is the question more:
Does physics entail logic?
Are the pieces of logic physical things - brain functions?

Logic might more easily describe physics. — Fire Ologist

That would require a usable theory of physical reality, which we don't have. We just have a collection of stubborn patterns.

You cannot logically recombine these stubborn patterns and hope that such syllogism will always predict a true fact in the physical universe. If it works anyway, you are just lucky, because this practice is actually unsupported. That is why you always have to test again.

One of those possibly pseudo-questions which may be sophistry; but, in your opinion do you think physics describes logic? — Shawn

You need logic before you can study physics. As was said already. (This incidentally is a cogent argument against physicalism as logic is used to construct physics, but not vice versa.)

Does physics entail logic? — Fire Ologist

I think there's a fascinating connection between Galileo's 'book of nature is written in mathematics' and the ability of modern mathematical physics to model and predict hitherto unknown natural processes. Through quantification, which comprises the ability to capture the measurable attributes of objects and forces, we are able to apply abstract mathematical methods, which often produce startingly novel results (per Eugene Wigner's The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.)

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? I mean, physical principles, such as Newton's Laws of Motion, and related mathematical techniques including calculus have been deployed to enormous effect across a huge range of applications. But Newton's laws don't explain why F=MA - nor do they need to. Can't we get by without knowing that?Isn't it sufficient to know how they work and how to apply them?

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

It was more about the fact that physics does not have one thing that is considered a legitimate "theory" in mathematics.

Stephen Hawking expressed the problem as following:

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.

Physics is a collection of stubborn patterns that can be observed in the physical universe and not a theory in the mathematical sense.

Physics is a collection of stubborn patterns that can be observed in the physical universe and not a theory theorem in the mathematical sense. — Tarskian

The equivalent of a theorem would rather be a single stubborn pattern (which they confusingly often call a theory in physics).

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.

But then again, they also have lots of separate theories in physics, each covering some other area of the field. They are meant to be complementary bodies of knowledge. In mathematical logic, different theories are alternatives to each other.

The term means something else in science versus in mathematical logic. Even in general mathematics, the term often just means some body of knowledge, just like in science, and which does not necessarily satisfy the definition of the term in mathematical logic.

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

I can't take this too seriously. Have you studied much fundamental physics? Especially with quantum field theory and particle physics, the tendency has been just to apply the mathematical patterns and marvel how they force nature onto these stubborn outcomes.

The maths is "unreasonably effective". Somehow or other, nature keeps jamming itself into the arrangements described by permutation symmetries and matrix mechanics. You might need the Higgs field to force the SU(2) electroweak sector to crack diagonally into SU(2)xU(1), but because something had to do the job physically, the Higgs could be the fictional beast with its own SU(2) structure that could "eat" three of the electroweak's degrees of freedom, so allowing the U(1) photon to burst free.

It is a crazy tale of science being forced into a wild speculation. And yet tellingly – as this was the mindset that particle physics had learnt to adopt from painful experience – three groups came up with the same solution all at the same time, making the distribution of the Nobel prize uncomfortably contentious.

So there we have physics reaching the point where the maths constructs the patterns, and if the patterns are possible, nature must wriggle about until it has discovered a strange machinery to achieve the goal of fitting the forms preordained.

The Big Bang could have been halted at many points in its hot unfolding. But with every phase change, it kept on track to become as mathematically self-simplified as possible.

Inflation seems needed to have prevented an immediate gravitational collapse. The Higgs transition looks to have then stabilised the vacuum when inflation broke and dumped its energy into a lot of reheated particles. Even then particle physics was doomed as all the matter was going to be consumed by all the antimatter eventually. But another completely different kind of mechanism – the strong force with its SU(3) confinement – came into play, wrapping up quarks into proton balls and so allow a new game based on electron~proton electrodynamics to take over from matter~antimatter annihilation.

In just the first few minutes of the Big Bang, the physics had tumbled down a hierarchy of algebraic geometry – permutation symmetries – to become stable enough to now last "forever". It was composed of particles with no further possibility to decay, in a vacuum properly secured.

I would agree that the fact that this worked – believing that nature must find its way into mathematical-strength patterns – has itself become rather an issue for the practice of physics. Now we are flooded by every kind of maths-first theorising like string theory and a hundred more. A lot of speculative crap has followed as I don't think the way that the maths and physics have connected in symmetry terms is a trick that is properly understood.

This is why I mention topological order as the actual root that connects. And here physics has its own kind of lead in its condensed matter models and such-like. These are now becoming quite influential on mathematics. Ricci curvature and other thermodynamical flow models have proven some pretty big results.

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.

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".

The physical universe is one big model, i.e. a vast collection of facts. Where is its single theory? Every statement that is provable from this theory needs to be a true fact in the physical universe. Furthermore, not one single fact in the physical universe may contradict this theory.

Then, and only then, physics will be a legitimate "theory" in accordance with the definition in mathematical logic.

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

Says who apart from you? Can you cite some source for this opinion? And why would maths be a judge of how physics proceeds anyway.

I just point out there is a relationship which you appear to be overlooking. And from a physicist’s point of view, the way mathematicians carry on can look equally wasteful of smart young minds. Chasing patterns that aren’t even useful.

The Yang-Mills mass gap may be a good example of whether mathematical purity matters to anyone but mathematicians. Is it actually important for some physical reason?

Then, and only then, physics will be a legitimate "theory" in accordance with the definition in mathematical logic. — Tarskian

These are sweeping statements. But are they more than your own personal opinion?

Says who apart from you? Can you cite some source for this opinion? — apokrisis

It is actually the ultimate goal of science:

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]

Stephen Hawking no longer believed that the ToE is an attainable goal:

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

It is physicists themselves who want a ToE. Mathematicians don't care, actually:

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”.

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. Otherwise, there will be barely any improvement to the current situation, as characterized by Hawking:

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

I may express it in my own words but the underlying ideas are actually not that original.

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 depends on your metaphysics if an exact quantum gravity theory is needed instead of an effective one. It you believe that emergence rules, that topological order is now king, then effective is all you expect.

That was the point I just argued in recounting the way the physics keeps jamming itself into the contortions of gauge invariance to ensure the rolling weight of the Big Bang continued long enough to have become interesting to those such as us.

It is actually the ultimate goal of science: — Tarskian

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.

One of those possibly pseudo-questions which may be sophistry; but, in your opinion do you think physics describes logic? — Shawn

No. In fact, one might say that the opposite is true. As Hume said, there is no 'proof' of, say, physical causality, we cannot be certain of it. On the other hand, it seems that any physical theory must be logically consistent. Logic is, I think, transcendental (i.e. a necessary precondition to any explanation) as the early Wittgenstein said.

Also, there is no conclusive evidence that physical laws are not contingent.

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

Physicists are currently siting on two stubborn patterns that are incompatible: quantum mechanics and gravity.

These two stubborn patterns "do not play nice with each other" and "dictate separate and contradictory rules for the cosmos" and "are mathematically incompatible" and "cannot explain things by applying them in separation". (quotes below)

So, physicists want a "grand unified" pattern instead. Physicists seem to view this effort as essential.

Such grand unified scheme may still not be a theory as defined in mathematical logic, but if this new stubborn pattern manages to remove existing inconsistencies, then chances are that it will be that too.

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.

One of those possibly pseudo-questions which may be sophistry; but, in your opinion do you think physics describes logic? — Shawn

Yes. Since physicists insist on using logic, the whole of physics is an expression of logic.

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"?

Accounting uses math, does the study of accountancy "describe math"?

But why would that justify thinking physics should "describe logic"? — flannel jesus

Yea, I guess I'm using to describe and to express to mean the same thing. Maybe it's more that if you've seen the expression, the description has been conveyed to you? Like if you see a model of the earth's electromagnetic dynamo, you're seeing the principles involved in making the model expressed, so you're also receiving a description of those principles. Or you could pull a description out of the expression. Is that not true?

Accounting uses math, does the study of accountancy "describe math"? — flannel jesus

Math originally came from accounting, believe it or not. The number zero came from a Babylonian device that was kind of like an abacus. Writing down the configuration on the abacus is where a symbol for zero came from. Zero's place in the human mind was cemented by practical issues surrounding trade. Math as an abstract domain comes from the invention of non-commodity money. Wherever the use of money spread, a tendency to think in mathematical abstraction followed.

Sorry, favorite topic. :grimace:

One of those possibly pseudo-questions which may be sophistry; but, in your opinion do you think physics describes logic? — Shawn

Not sure what this could mean, but maybe one can give it meaning. For example, I had a computer which can display a simple valid argument using traditional symbolism, say modus ponens. Could we not describe the physics behind the computer’s expression of this argument. If so, could we not do the same with a human?

Math originally came from accounting — frank

I was not expecting this reply. I thank you for humbling me.

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? Accounting and math notwithstanding.

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 guess not. But if a field is bound to logic, it will be a demonstration of logic, won't it? Couldn't describing and demonstrating both be kinds of showing?

I was not expecting this reply. I thank you for humbling me. — flannel jesus

Didn't mean to!

Math originally came from accounting, believe it or not — frank

Well, here is what ChatGPT has to say:

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.

:grin: Do you know why the ancient Greeks never developed the idea of zero? (Without asking an AI) :lol:

Nothingness was abhorrent ? Geometry? Don't know and don't care. :cool:

Physicists are currently siting on two stubborn patterns that are incompatible: quantum mechanics and gravity. — Tarskian

But they arise within the beauty of this larger pattern. Okun’s cube of theories. As outlined here….
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586530

And is maths itself organised in any grand cube of theories? Is everything slotted together under some grand unifying project like category theory or the Langland’s program?

On this issue, you seem just interested in being contentious rather than insightful.

Nothingness was abhorrent — jgill

Yea.

And is maths itself organised in any grand cube of theories? Is everything slotted together under some grand unifying project like category theory or the Langland’s program? — apokrisis

Mathematics has a massive foundational crisis with insurmountable issues.