Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Question on Special Relativity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    *Edited*

    Ignore this post. I'll re-post later when I can better express what it is I meant and what I was getting at.
    Well, I thought the analogy of mathematics to human language was pretty transparent. Do you have a comment on this?

    K54

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
      Well, I thought the analogy of mathematics to human language was pretty transparent. Do you have a comment on this?

      K54
      Mathematics as a comparison to human language is understandable enough, and it's definitely not new to me by any stretch. I think you have it wrong, though, and I'll try to explain why.


      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
      Because mathematics is a LANGUAGE with which to express certain physical concepts. Maths by itself is abstract. A poem or a science fiction novel use language in a perfectly consistent manner but have no usefulness in a technical sense. There are no di-lithium crystals or warp drive.

      Of course a poem or a fiction can express abstractions of reality. And maths is the ultimate abstract discipline.

      Again, the proper logical statement is "Maths are necessary for a physics hypothesis to be correct, but not sufficient." If the maths don't work out, then the hypothesis ain't right.

      K54
      I agree that mathematics can be considered a language. In the interest of establishing a base point, language uses a set of symbols to reference a set of concepts. A given language is a specific set of symbols and their references. Physical existence is a property of a concept. In fiction, it's understood by definition that the concepts expressed are not intended to possess physical existence even while they are presented as having just that. This is very different from how mathematics as a language functions.

      There is nothing in mathematics that distinguishes between concepts with physical existence and those without. That by itself might be enough, but it doesn't end there. The basic concepts of mathematics (structure, quantity, space and change) are part and parcel of physical reality and our interaction with it. To claim that mathematics has nothing to do with reality as you did in Post #11 ignores this very fundamental truth.

      Further, the proper logical statement you've presented here differs from that in Post #11. Obviously, the math is not sufficient for a physics hypothesis to be correct. However, what you said there was that it's insufficient "for it to apply to physics". Those are two very different statements. In truth, physics hypotheses as expressed in human language (as opposed to mathematical language) are interpretations. That's why the math is insufficient. All true hypotheses must agree with the math, but the math itself is independent of the interpretation.

      I don't deny that there are cases where mathematics may seem divorced from reality. However, I think these are merely cases where the practical applications of pure mathematics have not yet been discovered. They certainly don't suffice as proof that math has nothing to do with reality.

      In short, my statements in Post #13 shouldn't be taken as expressing confusion about how physics and math interact. Rather, it's an expression of puzzlement that anyone can seriously believe the two aren't interrelated. As I said then, this isn't an idea that's new to me. It just seems to misunderstand the basic concept of what math is and how it functions.
      I'm not here anymore.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
        Mathematics as a comparison to human language is understandable enough, and it's definitely not new to me by any stretch. I think you have it wrong, though, and I'll try to explain why.




        I agree that mathematics can be considered a language. In the interest of establishing a base point, language uses a set of symbols to reference a set of concepts. A given language is a specific set of symbols and their references. Physical existence is a property of a concept. In fiction, it's understood by definition that the concepts expressed are not intended to possess physical existence even while they are presented as having just that. This is very different from how mathematics as a language functions.

        There is nothing in mathematics that distinguishes between concepts with physical existence and those without. That by itself might be enough, but it doesn't end there. The basic concepts of mathematics (structure, quantity, space and change) are part and parcel of physical reality and our interaction with it. To claim that mathematics has nothing to do with reality as you did in Post #11 ignores this very fundamental truth.

        Further, the proper logical statement you've presented here differs from that in Post #11. Obviously, the math is not sufficient for a physics hypothesis to be correct. However, what you said there was that it's insufficient "for it to apply to physics". Those are two very different statements. In truth, physics hypotheses as expressed in human language (as opposed to mathematical language) are interpretations. That's why the math is insufficient. All true hypotheses must agree with the math, but the math itself is independent of the interpretation.

        I don't deny that there are cases where mathematics may seem divorced from reality. However, I think these are merely cases where the practical applications of pure mathematics have not yet been discovered. They certainly don't suffice as proof that math has nothing to do with reality.

        In short, my statements in Post #13 shouldn't be taken as expressing confusion about how physics and math interact. Rather, it's an expression of puzzlement that anyone can seriously believe the two aren't interrelated. As I said then, this isn't an idea that's new to me. It just seems to misunderstand the basic concept of what math is and how it functions.
        I made it exceedingly clear that maths and physics are interrelated. If the maths are wrong, then the physics are wrong. Maths are necessary but not sufficient.

        Q.E.D.

        K54

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
          I made it exceedingly clear that maths and physics are interrelated. If the maths are wrong, then the physics are wrong. Maths are necessary but not sufficient.

          Q.E.D.

          K54
          You did so while also stating repeatedly that the maths had nothing to do with reality. You don't get to claim both. Further, you made a direct comparison between math and fiction, a comparison that also fails.
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
            You did so while also stating repeatedly that the maths had nothing to do with reality. You don't get to claim both. Further, you made a direct comparison between math and fiction, a comparison that also fails.
            Human language is an abstraction (for the most part) that is distinguished from non-human animal "signaling". Human language has both rules of grammar and syntax and is internally consistent and is obviously applicable to reality. One can generate nonsense sentences that are completely grammatically correct. Being grammatically correct does not mean these sentences have meaning in real life.

            Maths is an internally consistent abstract system, SOME of which applies to physical reality. When it DOES apply to physical reality it must be CONSISTENT. Often the maths are over-simplified but give an approximation to reality in certain cases -- e.g., Newtonian vs. Relativistic mechanics.

            But AGAIN, if maths applied to an hypothesis in physics are wrong, then the hypothesis is wrong. The maths then becomes an important tool for determining whether an hypothesis needs to be tweaked or discarded. The maths can't PROVE an hypothesis, just as nothing in scientific method has absolute "proof".

            To summarize: 1) Math is the appropriate language for framing relationships in physics. If you don't accept this, please show me a case where it is not. 2) If the hypothesis involves incorrect maths, then the hypothesis is wrong. Necessary but not sufficient.

            One HUGE difference between maths and human language is that the latter can be rife with grammatical and semantic errors and still be understood, e.g, "I could care less." Whereas in maths the grammar and syntax are precise, one error and the whole framework falls apart.

            In summary, math is an internally-consistent abstraction that at times is applicable to reality as a tool when the physical concept can be framed in mathematical terms. In that case, if the maths doesn't work out, then...

            K54

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
              I agree that mathematics can be considered a language.
              I disagree. Mathematics isn't a language but it is expressed through languages, that is, various forms of mathematical notation. An example would be the difference between the Hindu-Arabic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... and the Roman I, II, III, IV, V, ...; another would be the different notations used for calculus.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                Maths is an internally consistent abstract system, SOME of which applies to physical reality.

                In summary, math is an internally-consistent abstraction that at times is applicable to reality as a tool when the physical concept can be framed in mathematical terms. In that case, if the maths doesn't work out, then...
                You would have us believe that physics hypotheses outright fail if the math doesn't work (with which I agree) while simultaneously claiming that only some math applies to physical reality (which I dispute). To have the latter be the case would necessarily entail the possibility that physics hypotheses could be invalidated based on math that has nothing to do with physical reality. That doesn't make any sense, and simply repeating it doesn't make your case.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  I disagree. Mathematics isn't a language but it is expressed through languages, that is, various forms of mathematical notation. An example would be the difference between the Hindu-Arabic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... and the Roman I, II, III, IV, V, ...; another would be the different notations used for calculus.
                  I'm not sure I understand why you think it doesn't qualify as a language. I pointed to the criteria for a language being symbols that reference concepts. The forms of mathematical notations would be those symbols, where Roman numerals vs calculus notations are just different 'words'. Mathematical notation even possesses recursivity, productivity and displacement. In that, it's just like human language (small wonder, that). Can you elaborate?
                  I'm not here anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    I disagree. Mathematics isn't a language but it is expressed through languages, that is, various forms of mathematical notation. An example would be the difference between the Hindu-Arabic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... and the Roman I, II, III, IV, V, ...; another would be the different notations used for calculus.
                    I think you are confusing the element of the universe the mathematics represents with the element itself. In the universe, there exists separate things. We can express enumeration, summation, subtraction, and so forth through the language of mathematics, or through the more cumbersome method I use here, a normal human langage. And yet what is behind the concepts and words is a real element of the universe itself. Mathematics is a concise and very accurate langage for expressing that reality. But it is a language, a communicative medium. What it represents is in fact 'real'.

                    What gets a bit odd however is that there are elements expressible in mathematics that have no known physical counterpart. Yet the ideas themselves are real, they flow out of the application of a set of rules and logical inferences. And they have existence outside our ability to express them. Or do they?

                    And If we except these concepts are mere representations of what is real, yet they have no physical counterpart, this challenges the notion that the 'material' is all there is.


                    Jim
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      What gets a bit odd however is that there are elements expressible in mathematics that have no known physical counterpart. Yet the ideas themselves are real, they flow out of the application of a set of rules and logical inferences. And they have existence outside our ability to express them. Or do they?

                      And If we except these concepts are mere representations of what is real, yet they have no physical counterpart, this challenges the notion that the 'material' is all there is.
                      I completely agree! I'd quibble that they have no known physical counterpart (which I think is klaus' hangup), but I don't think the challenge is any less potent.
                      I'm not here anymore.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        I disagree. Mathematics isn't a language but it is expressed through languages, that is, various forms of mathematical notation. An example would be the difference between the Hindu-Arabic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... and the Roman I, II, III, IV, V, ...; another would be the different notations used for calculus.
                        It's a language in that it's abstract, uses symbols (some of which are standard but this is NOT necessary) and has a precise grammar depending on the axioms of a particular system. E.g., an algebraic "group" has a binary operation on a non-empty set, and that operation is associative, has an identity element, and inverses. It does matter what symbols you use as long as they follow these axioms.

                        In English: "I have a headache," In German: "Mir tut den Kopf weh." have the same meaning in different symbols (and grammar in this case. The German is word-for-word "To Me does the head woe.")

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          I think you are confusing the element of the universe the mathematics represents with the element itself. In the universe, there exists separate things. We can express enumeration, summation, subtraction, and so forth through the language of mathematics, or through the more cumbersome method I use here, a normal human langage. And yet what is behind the concepts and words is a real element of the universe itself. Mathematics is a concise and very accurate langage for expressing that reality. But it is a language, a communicative medium. What it represents is in fact 'real'.

                          What gets a bit odd however is that there are elements expressible in mathematics that have no known physical counterpart. Yet the ideas themselves are real, they flow out of the application of a set of rules and logical inferences. And they have existence outside our ability to express them. Or do they?

                          And If we except these concepts are mere representations of what is real, yet they have no physical counterpart, this challenges the notion that the 'material' is all there is.


                          Jim
                          Bingo! That's EXACTLY what I said but in different words. ;-)

                          K54

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            I'm not sure I understand why you think it doesn't qualify as a language. I pointed to the criteria for a language being symbols that reference concepts. The forms of mathematical notations would be those symbols, where Roman numerals vs calculus notations are just different 'words'. Mathematical notation even possesses recursivity, productivity and displacement. In that, it's just like human language (small wonder, that). Can you elaborate?
                            Precisely. It's the mathematical notations that are the languages, and not mathematics itself.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              I think you are confusing the element of the universe the mathematics represents with the element itself. In the universe, there exists separate things.
                              No. I am carefully distinguishing between the way mathematical concepts and knowledge are conveyed - that is, through the various languages/mathematical notations- and the concepts and knowledge.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                Precisely. It's the mathematical notations that are the languages, and not mathematics itself.
                                That makes sense.
                                I'm not here anymore.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X