Large Hardon Collider

[zoobernut]

I think Max came up with perfectly a few perfectly good mathematical axioms and I did not see you address them. I came up with one as well. These are mathematical relationships in nature that are true and have always been true in our universe. All three of the internal angles of a triangle always add up to the same amount. The golden ratio is always the exact same which shows up in nature in many different places. The circumference of a circle is always related to its diameter and a constant. the area of a circle is always related to its radius and a constant.

I am trying to word these truths in a way that does not use any numbers or math language as much as possible to show that even if we had no math language and had no numbers they would still be there and would still follow their own rules.

[Max™]

I think will just let it slide. This seems like one of those no end in sight arguments, and i'm having trouble taking it seriously. These arguments remind me of how Hume and Kant argued that causuality and contrast (among others) were "fundamental truths" in regards to the human brain/mind. Of course, Hume said that these were in the brain and they imposed themselves on reality (seeing causuality where there may be none) and Kant argued, much like you guys, that causuality is not in the brain, but rather it is a metaphysical and fundamental truth that governs reality.

I never really had a problem with what they said, so i suppose i shouldn't have a problem, but i never took it seriously either.

Don't even get me started on Causality, as I'm working on a way to represent the "weirdness" of quantum physics through a model which expands causal interactions below the planck mass in a way suggested, oddly enough, by General Relativity.

I'm not arguing the same type of thing Kant is either, I know very well that we do not see time properly.

I am not arguing about any metaphysical bullshit, I'm simply stating what is a fairly obvious fact, mathematics emerges from the study of the Universe, it does so regardless of who studies it, and the rules apply the same way.

There will be no magical way to describe everything without mathematics, if there is, I assure you it will be possible to translate it perfectly into mathematics, otherwise it will not be describing THIS Universe, which is perfectly described by mathematics.


The argument that we're "making approximations which only fit when we lose the truth of the subject" is bullshit, we're only using approximations because we don't have an exact form of the mathematics we need to use to describe everything. Nonetheless, the math DOES work to accurately represent events enough to provide experimental accuracies with margins of error reduced to something like 0.000000001%~ or some shit.

[Neosutra]

How did this go from a thread on advanced particle physics concepts to semantics on universal trancendance of mathematics?

[BRP]

I'm simply stating what is a fairly obvious fact, mathematics emerges from the study of the Universe,

No different from any other language really. At least once other humans enter the equation.

Max, consider for a moment what is being said when we are talking about math. What math describes is different from what math is. I think this is where the confusion lies.

Math is only a tool to share knowledge. To take an idea from your brain and to put it into another person's brain. Just like what I am doing with these words.

[Mizango]

How did this go from a thread on advanced particle physics concepts to semantics on universal trancendance of mathematics?

lol exactly why I am merely reading, I want not part of this. Lose, lose situation tbh. We've been down this road countless times enough as is.

[Max™]

Topology translates EXACTLY into representations of Algebra, which can be converted into Set theoretical terms, described using concepts from Knot theory, and as some argue, falls completely under Category theory.

I know exactly what you're getting at about the interesting structures with a different starting point, and am trying to show that it is possible for someone to have came the other way.

People could have discovered the concepts of Lie Algebras in 26 Dimensional spaces, generalized them to infinite degree Hilbert spaces, noted how naturally the descriptions of Topological Quantum Field Theory emerge from applying Knot theorems to those rules, and suddenly discovered our current forms of General Relativity and the Standard Model as mathematical curiosities suggested by their richer starting point.

It is all woven together, the tapestry is one which existed before we came along to poke at it.

Math doesn't change the same way language does. Computer languages and Sign Language and the languages of indigenous South American Tribes may have virtually nothing in common between certain concepts, no way to accurately translate them.

Language possesses mathematical concepts, and can in fact be converted into systems with mathematical structure readily, but no matter who studies it, or what language they speak, everyone who EVER looks at a circle, who considers the logarithmic function, who examines the relationship between energy and mass, the speed of light and the fine structure of spacetime.

They will ALWAYS, without fail produce the same mathematical concepts which can be translated to the ones we're familiar with simply by converting the symbols to our representations of them.

Euler did not make his function, he FOUND it, plucked it out of the air if you will.

Languages such as the one we're using to communicate here were not pulled out of thin air, they were constructed within the minds of people to relate with other people.

Mathematics can be described with similar structures as language, but math is NOT THE SYSTEM OF NUMBERS USED TO DESCRIBE IT... it is something deeper than that, and exists without the system we create to communicate it to each other.

English will die when the last person who speaks it dies, assuming it isn't stored somewhere in some recording system or something.

Mathematics will never die, even if no one is ever aware in this Universe after humanity dies, ever again, those facts and axioms will remain true.

[Max™]

Because Physics is where Mathematics and Philosophy rub together and make geeky babies?

Physics without Math is geeky poetry.

[BRP]

The distinctions between objects, events, and ideas are no different. They exist "naturally" in the universe. Language only communicates this. Just like mathematics.

[Max™]

Yes they do, though every person who sees an apple will not necessarily claim the same statements about an apple to be true, as language is truly open to interpretation.

Consider an observer existing in a different Universe, one with no apples, or trees, or anything we are familiar with.

Would they still discover mathematics?


Funny that the term transcendent came up: Transcendental number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, though that isn't what it was referring to specifically.


As I said, yes we use a language to describe mathematics, but math is not that language.

English IS the language we use to describe concepts to other English speakers, and it exists only in that sense. The grammar and syntax and letters were not found lying about our environment, they were constructed implicitly to explain our environment.

I'm not sure how to better get across this concept, because frankly, English was not made for it.

We did not make mathematics, we found it "laying around", so to speak. That is why it came up in a discussion about Physics.


To bring it back around to Physics again, String Theory is an example of Math which appears to be able to describe the Universe, but also appears to describe other possible Universes just as well.

Does String Theory exist in other Universes then?

My whole point is that yes, if you had an entirely different stage for we actors to strut about, the weave of mathematics could still be found there, and related to what we have discovered here.

[BRP]

Other universes are other worlds. Language is a tool to describe what is in our world. The language of that other world would be a better fit. I can only talk about what exists in our world, at least with this language. Math is no different. There is no point in speculating otherwise. EDIT: (Really, what a terrible subject to bring up)

Anyway, you are still not seeing that what math describes is not math.

[Max™]

The relationship between the diameter of a circle and the circumference is not math?

What is it then, pray tell?


You're still not seeing that the language we use to describe the principles and concepts of mathematics is not actually mathematics. That math is something which exists beyond mere language, more fundamental than the terms used to describe it.

No, that isn't a terrible subject to bring up, that's the kind of shit you need to consider when dealing with concepts like this, particularly when you're getting into the kinds of territory suggested by String Theory.


That line about Religion without Science and Science without Religion is a sweet thought, but it doesn't touch the reality of the situation.

Math without Physics is still Math, Physics without Math is geeky poetry.

[BRP]

The relationship between the diameter of a circle and the circumference is not math?

What is it then, pray tell?

Reality. Math only describes it.

Also another reality might be different. Making our languages useless.

[Max™]

You're not looking far enough down the rabbit hole, my man.

There is no level below mathematics, just as there is no semblance of language below the symbols used to present it.


That reality in which pi is the relationship of a circles diameter to its circumference IS mathematics, you're looking at the right answer, but mistaking the numbers and symbols we use to relate mathematics to each other for the actual fundamental stuff which math really is.

[BRP]

What you are saying isn't pi, but a description of pi(even when saying "pi.") That is the best we can do.

[Mizango]

Courtesy of the Herschel SPIRE satellite.

Herschel Images Promise Bright Future For Astronomy

We are about to blow the cover off far away galaxies and stars outside of our realm of view and understanding. Someone posted that link on Galaxyzoo.org this morning.


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y15...1450-large.jpg

Check out that detail

[Max™]

No, all I am saying is what a circle is.

You can change that value by changing what that circle is placed against, but even then you can note that changing the boundary conditions produces the same results we observe here.

There is no other hypothetical reality which is so different that there is no way you could have some semblance of mathematical truths.

The very requirement of being observable already places certain restrictions on the types of Universes that one could be said to exist within.

String Landscape models reinforce this in an odd manner.

[Max™]

Courtesy of the Herschel SPIRE satellite.

Herschel Images Promise Bright Future For Astronomy

We are about to blow the cover off far away galaxies and stars outside of our realm of view and understanding. Someone posted that link on Galaxyzoo.org this morning.


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y15...1450-large.jpg

Check out that detail

Nice, when are the first interferometry based space telescopes supposed to be functional again?

2012 or 2014?

[Metrosio]

This must be trolling. Nobody can be this spaced out. No matter how whacked out another reality is, the proportion between a circles circumference and it's radius will always be the same, a rectangle will always have four angles and a thing added with another thing (no matter how you define "thing") will be two things. "But that is reality, not math!" you say. I come with the daring proposal that reality *is* math.

Now I want to see some particle smashing an awesome pictures. Preferably with Neil deGrasse Tyson joining the forum.

[Mizango]

Now I want to see some particle smashing an awesome pictures. Preferably with Neil deGrasse Tyson joining the forum.

Working on that lol.

[Mizango]

Nice, when are the first interferometry based space telescopes supposed to be functional again?

2012 or 2014?

2014-2015, I cant wait for that program to get started.