Large Hardon Collider

[zoobernut]

Again, that's an opinion. We use maths to talk about the universes, but we could build a language around physics's interaction directly. Describe the universe with bosons, mesons, energy..etc. The problem is, you can't do that unless you understand everything, so it's not very useful for us.




Why "2" exist"? I can [indirectly] come to the conclusion that 2 particles exists, but why do I need the number 2? The number here is insignificant, because every particles are independant. If you bundle them together, you're not describing the universe accurately anymore.

You are not thinking on an abstract enough level. Regardless of if the word 2 existed or not the concept of 2, what the word 2 means would still exist. I could call 2, blork instead of 2 and it would still mean the same thing and behave the same way because its behavior is built into the world.

[Kaylia]

You are not thinking on an abstract enough level. Regardless of if the word 2 existed or not the concept of 2, what the word 2 means would still exist. I could call 2, blork instead of 2 and it would still mean the same thing and behave the same way because its behavior is built into the world.

Eh?

What information about the universe "2" hold? If you want to support the claim that mathematics are everywhere in the nature, it should be an easy answer, but it's not.


When you bundle two objects together, you will always lose informations. It could be a distance, an interaction, a spin...but one thing is certain, there is a lost.

[Max™]

I can identify that a thing exists.

I can identify that a thing is not another thing by virtue of both existing.

Very basic logical principles.

There is a difference between one object, and two objects. Whether you use the symbol 2 to represent it does not matter, the relationships between the values are not something we created, they are something we noticed about the Universe.

We did not make mathematics, we discovered it.

We made language, we even use language to describe mathematics, but where language is extremely arbitrary, every child on Earth could figure out that two groups of two apples is the same as one group of four apples.

They might say it was blar snur of blar niktoks is the same as ung snur of crax niktoks, but if I then said to you, ung, blar, dex, crax, bik, kyan. Kyan = bik + ung, blar x blar = crax, crax - dex = ung, you could figure out that they were the same concepts as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

[zoobernut]

I can identify that a thing exists.

I can identify that a thing is not another thing by virtue of both existing.

Very basic logical principles.

There is a difference between one object, and two objects. Whether you use the symbol 2 to represent it does not matter, the relationships between the values are not something we created, they are something we noticed about the Universe.

We did not make mathematics, we discovered it.

We made language, we even use language to describe mathematics, but where language is extremely arbitrary, every child on Earth could figure out that two groups of two apples is the same as one group of four apples.

They might say it was blar snur of blar niktoks is the same as ung snur of crax niktoks, but if I then said to you, ung, blar, dex, crax, bik, kyan. Kyan = bik + ung, blar x blar = crax, crax - dex = ung, you could figure out that they were the same concepts as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Very eloquently put Max.

[bigrougabagel]

thankee

[Kaylia]

I can identify that a thing exists.

I can identify that a thing is not another thing by virtue of both existing.

Very basic logical principles.

There is a difference between one object, and two objects. Whether you use the symbol 2 to represent it does not matter, the relationships between the values are not something we created, they are something we noticed about the Universe.

We did not make mathematics, we discovered it.

In first grade, they told me to sum apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Saying you can find a "2" implies there is 2 identical objects that can be summed. But really...can you find me two identicals apples? I can't do it, sorry.

Now, I supose we could jump directly to bosons since they offer you the biggest opportunities for a counter argument, but do you know enough about them to say they are all the same? I haven't repeated the same quantum experiments enough time to make sure that they are in fact all the same...but that's only me.


Also, can you point me which principle you're talking about? Mathematics is a structure, and there is many way to build it. You could build for exemple a structure where 0 is false, and 1,2,3,4,5 is true. Sure, if we talk about real domain structure, we agreed that 1 < 2, but you're the one limiting yourself to this.


My points is that there is "things" out there, and there is relations between them. Mathematics is the language we defined to described these things and the relations, nothing more. You can see numbers everywhere if you want, I see photons.

We made language, we even use language to describe mathematics, but where language is extremely arbitrary, every child on Earth could figure out that two groups of two apples is the same as one group of four apples.

They might say it was blar snur of blar niktoks is the same as ung snur of crax niktoks, but if I then said to you, ung, blar, dex, crax, bik, kyan. Kyan = bik + ung, blar x blar = crax, crax - dex = ung, you could figure out that they were the same concepts as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6

That's so beyond the point.

Your point:
We see number in the nature

My point:
We see number in the nature when we approximate shit, and if we approximate shit, it's not the nature anymore but an approximation of it.



Also, if you really want to argue about number in the nature, we should take the geometry route, instead of basic algebra. Pi and e are so much more interesting.

[Demosthenes11]

I can identify that a thing exists.

I can identify that a thing is not another thing by virtue of both existing.

Very basic logical principles.

There is a difference between one object, and two objects. Whether you use the symbol 2 to represent it does not matter, the relationships between the values are not something we created, they are something we noticed about the Universe.

We did not make mathematics, we discovered it.

We made language, we even use language to describe mathematics, but where language is extremely arbitrary, every child on Earth could figure out that two groups of two apples is the same as one group of four apples.

They might say it was blar snur of blar niktoks is the same as ung snur of crax niktoks, but if I then said to you, ung, blar, dex, crax, bik, kyan. Kyan = bik + ung, blar x blar = crax, crax - dex = ung, you could figure out that they were the same concepts as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

this is very wrong and I'll make a good post about why soon!

[Neosutra]

The stuff was deleted, but I apologize for the derail earlier. I shouldnt have provoked plow, and apologize for salting up an otherwise delicious thread.

As for the current topics at hand, Ill contribute some of my own thoughts on the subjects in the morning, as I am still bleeding at the moment from having my tat finished tonight.

[Max™]

Oh, I definitely agree about geometry, arithmetic is just a very basic concept to use to explain my statements.

Geometry can be translated into Algebra, Algebra can be translated into Set Theory, Topological concepts, Calculus, The study of Infinities, etc, these are principles which can be defined in a sense of true or false.

I can not say as much about most of science, I can only say science as we know it has yet to be proven false.

Why do things have to be identical to understand they can be counted or put into groups?

These concepts are unique in that they do not even require a physical object to relate them against. It is simply convenient to do so.

[Kaylia]

Why do things have to be identical to understand they can be counted or put into groups?

These concepts are unique in that they do not even require a physical object to relate them against. It is simply convenient to do so.

I will use the same analogy...I cant think of anything else at 7am. How do you sum up oranges and apples? Sure, you can sum them up as fruits, but this is a generalization. Individual information was lost in the process, because "1 orange + 1 apple" tell you more than "2 fruits". You group objects to observe pattern, but that's how your brain works, not the universe.

If both apples were perfectly identicals, you wouldn't lose anything, but every single bit of information is unique in the universe (in appearance at least), and summing anything will destroy that information.

I'm not saying statistic (that's pretty much what you do when you sum) isn't an useful tool to predict stuff, but I seriously doubt it would allow us to understand the universe using its own language (if there is any). We just use less accurate informations to obtain less accurate answer because it's the best we can do.

[Plow]

I think what Max is getting at is Math itself as that language (not our representative characters, obviously), and physical sciences as the tools to attempt to decipher it. (with our characters simply tools for describing it in a communicative manner)

I'm not entirely sure, though, but this:

You can describe math without a Universe.

seems to be getting at a deeper vision of math as unchanging between universes, if there are more

[Woozie]

Now, I supose we could jump directly to bosons since they offer you the biggest opportunities for a counter argument, but do you know enough about them to say they are all the same? I haven't repeated the same quantum experiments enough time to make sure that they are in fact all the same...but that's only me.

It's in the mathematics. There happens to be an easy-to-understand relationship between the spins and the class of particles, so we normally think of spin as being the defining factor between bosons and fermions. But the true distinction doesn't come from this. The true reason particles are separated into fermions and bosons isn't because of their spins, but because the mathematics require that wave functions and systems to fall into either symmetric states (bosons) or antisymmetric states (fermions). Symmetric states follow bose-einstein statistics and are thus called Bosons, and antisymmetric states follow fermi-einstein statistics, and are thus called Fermions. It is later proven in Quantum Field Theory that half integer spins can't represent bosons and integer spins can't represent fermions.

If we take away the fact that the particles are fundamentally identical, then we lose the requirement that all particles be either fermions or bosons, and this destroys much of our knowledge of particle physics (and contradicts many experiments and empirical observations)

Also, fermi-dirac statistics and bose-einstein statistics both depend on the assumption that the particles they describe are indistinguishable. In other words, the fact that Bose-Einstein statistics even work indicates that bosons truly are identical.

Virtually every experiment ever done in QM is a testament to the fact that particles truly are identical.

[Kaylia]

It's in the mathematics. There happens to be an easy-to-understand relationship between the spins and the class of particles, so we normally think of spin as being the defining factor between bosons and fermions. But the true distinction doesn't come from this. The true reason particles are separated into fermions and bosons isn't because of their spins, but because the mathematics require that wave functions and systems to fall into either symmetric states (bosons) or antisymmetric states (fermions). Symmetric states follow bose-einstein statistics and are thus called Bosons, and antisymmetric states follow fermi-einstein statistics, and are thus called Fermions. It is later proven in Quantum Field Theory that half integer spins can't represent bosons and integer spins can't represent fermions.

If we take away the fact that the particles are fundamentally identical, then we lose the requirement that all particles be either fermions or bosons, and this destroys much of our knowledge of particle physics (and contradicts many experiments and empirical observations)

Also, fermi-dirac statistics and bose-einstein statistics both depend on the assumption that the particles they describe are indistinguishable. In other words, the fact that Bose-Einstein statistics even work indicates that bosons truly are identical.

I understand this (I had Bose–Einstein condensate in mind when I posted earlier), and it's the reason why the apples/oranges is just a gross analogy.

However, every bosons are still unique in the sense that one bosons is not another. The photon comming from an old star isn't the one that come from the Sun. So, even if we can't distinguish them, we can't say they are the same.

Now, I supose we could argue forever about overlapping wave function, because we have no tool to track individual boson, but I still doubt they form a real "2", even if it might look like it from our distant perspective.

Virtually every experiment ever done in QM is a testament to the fact that particles truly are identical.

Yet, nothing you can do will make the particles land on the same spot.

I don't know, I personally have issue saying every experiments in QM are the "same". I have no doubt that statistics are a very powerful tool to analyze our data, but I don't think it's everything.

[Neosutra]

Actually it is debatable that one boson isnt actually another Kaylia. All the bosons could be the same particle .

[Max™]

Indeed, and the entire Universe could be a single extended object.

The point remains, you can make distinctions and concepts emerge which naturally take the form of mathematics.

We didn't make math, we found math, we made language.


Apples is a set of objects with the properties which apples have, red, sweet, fruit, green, seeds, stems, etc.

Oranges is a set of objects with the properties of oranges, sweet, sticky, thicker rind, etc.

Fruit is a set of objects, of which apples and oranges are subsets, or you could define fruit as a category containing the sets apples and oranges.

You're trying to narrow things down for no reason, mathematics is not as arbitrary as concepts such as language, but it is more or less infinitely flexible.


All particles are fundamentally indistinguishable, an electron is an electron is a rose is a rose. As Woozie said, QFT would not work if this was not true, QFT works quite well, so logically until some better theory is found which falsifies that postulate, particles can be considered identical.

[Qalbert]

Late to the party, but I finally got my hands on "Death by Black Hole" and am enjoying it thus far.

[Kaylia]

Actually it is debatable that one boson isnt actually another Kaylia. All the bosons could be the same particle .

Many things are debatable, but certain sound less likely, no? ;/

I haven't seen any compelling argument that would make me think they would be the same, but if such thing exist, I'm interested!

We didn't make math, we found math, we made language.

Why are you making statement like this? It's not a fact, it's not even a conclusion to a rhetorical argument. I find mathematics as amazing as anyone, but to say we know anything about the nature of the universe is pretentious imo.

We observed the universe, and we made a language to describe it. Why does mathematics and physics have to be anything more? How do you find mathematics using the scientific methods? How do you observe a mathematics specimen?

In my opinion, maths is simply an empty language. We are free to build any structure with it, but only the "useful" one will be remembered and used.

[Enygma55]

In my opinion, maths is simply an empty language. We are free to build any structure with it, but only the "useful" one will be remembered and used.

You dont need to remember the "useful" ones of math, because it will always be true no matter where you are in the universe. It will never change over time. It can never be forgotten because it governs the laws of the Universe. You can observe how the universe works and rediscover the "useful" ones again.

Lets say the Human Race was wiped out by a giant Meteor or a machine capable of producing black holes >.> 4 billion years from now when A new human race repopulates the earth, they can observe how their the universe works and Rediscover math. Every formula found by this new race will be Exactly the same as the ones found 4 billion years ago because that's how the universe works.

Saying Math is a Universal Language means it will always be true everywhere in the entire universe and for all eternity. Math in this context = the physical laws that the universe follows.

[Kaylia]

You dont need to remember the "useful" ones of math, because it will always be true no matter where you are in the universe. It will never change over time. It can never be forgotten because it governs the laws of the Universe. You can observe how the universe works and rediscover the "useful" ones again.

It's only true because you build your system around axioms that you consider true. Those axioms are arbitrary.

So yes, it will always be true no matter where you go in the universe, because the axiom we picked won't change, just like the english grammar won't change if you carry it on the other side of the universe.

Construction of the real numbers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Woozie will probably rape my post tomorrow, because he is far more advanced than I am in mathematics, but what you call "universal truth" is just an axiom in a particular domains of mathematics (ie: real numbers got one more axiom than complex number)

Lets say the Human Race was wiped out by a giant Meteor or a machine capable of producing black holes >.> 4 billion years from now when A new human race repopulates the earth, they can observe how their the universe works and Rediscover math. Every formula found by this new race will be Exactly the same as the ones found 4 billion years ago because that's how the universe works.

Again, replace math with universe, and you get to the same points. Their maths would probably be different, but their observation about the universe would be the same. That's why I don't understand why you place maths as something more fundamental than the universe itself.

The universe simply dictate which mathematics are going to be useful when we attempt to understand it.

Saying Math is a Universal Language means it will always be true everywhere in the entire universe and for all eternity. Math in this context = the physical laws that the universe follows.

If you want to say this, I don't mind, but that's not what Max had in mind. It's also a very dangerous equality to make, since you can build mathematics that don't follow physical laws of the universe, so both are not equals.

[Kryssan]

Hmm, I don't really believe that to be the case.


Language changes all the time, based on how people speak and the way in which they wish to communicate. Math doesn't. The way people use math changes. But the math never does. People use math incorrectly to describe their topic of conversation, thereby resulting in something that is later proven incorrect, because the information they had of the system was not the entirety, and as a result their theory is overwritten by a new one based on other data acquired at a later date. However, the math used between these two theories did not change. The operands and calculations were exactly the same. The difference is one person communicated the process incorrectly, either due to human error or lack of sufficient data. And of course, the person doing this correction may also be corrected later by another who discovers an error in the math they used to explain their theory. But once again, their use of math to disclaim the other will still follow the same route.

Language, on the other hand, changes with society. The rules of English change all the time, or worse, they're simply ignored. As other societies develop, other languages are lost. We cannot return later to an ancient civilization and know what it was they were attempting to communicate with themselves, and perhaps with us, using our language. Especially in cases where the very structure of our dichotomy is different. IE many languages are currently rooted in Latin, so some crossover is observed between them; yet there are other languages that do not have these roots and one cannot simply assume the meaning of words based on language root, because the roots of the languages are different and the structure in which they're interpreted may not be the same. However, you can examine any concept you desire with math, regardless of how old this concept is or who developed it, without needing a dedicated translation tool in order to understand it. People's theories change, their understanding of how things work change, the world goes roundy roundy and blah blah blah; yet the way in which they explain concepts with math to other people remains the same. That is why math is more fundamental. Now, in your example, where the human race is annihilated and noone is left to explain the math we used, I still feel another race would use the exact same dichotomy of math. The difference would most likely come in the form of the base they used for their math. I believe however the way in which they described the universe with math would still be the same.