Math Is NOT The anguage of the Universe

I think I found a good argument for this belief.

I hold an apple in my hand. I hold one apple in my hand. This one appl can be regarded as a whole. One whole.

I take that apple and split it in half. I have two halves of a whole, or two halves of an apple.

However, when I look at each half, I realize that they are not identical.

When I halve the number one, I get two identical halves. However, when I halve an apple, I do not get two identical halves. The terms whole and half are simply descriptive approximations of a thing math is not specific enough to address.

I can do this with a pencil, a piece of wood, any amount of liquid...or air... The result would be the same. Even the apple, itself, is not truly on whole, but a conglomerate of things that- when taking together- is taken as a whole.

So...what is math? Is math the language of approximate proportion? The language of approximations relative to other approximations? Not sure, but at least I think my first thought might be true.

 

Interesting.

 

Of course, it is the language of the universe. The missing piece of your puzzle is symmetry. If the apple was perfectly symmetrical, then by taking its mirror image you have the other "half". In mathematics, this is referred to as an isomorphism. Now, in reality, of course, apples are rarely perfectly symmetrical. But, that doesn't mean it isn't mathematics, in fact, it is just another piece of the much larger mathematical puzzle we call our universe.

 

what is an "anguage"?

 

Not really, no. It may be the language of science, but it's hopelessly inadequate to explain even the probabilistic behavior of subatomic particles, to say nothing of the various psychological phenomena which are uniqe to the human condition.

 

your math is not accurate is what your saying... you really have a fraction, something other then .5 m but math can still describe it, or you can round to the nearest 1\2

.

 

I'm not sure why you say math is hopelessly inadequate to explain the probabilistic behavior of subatomic particles. Quantum mechanics has been around for awhile. Of course it's not predictive, but it is probabilistic.

I agree current math is inadequate to explain the behavior of humans, but human brains can be described mathematically. We just don't have the technology yet to describe and map the whole brain. That doesn't mean math has failed. The human brain is the most complex object in the universe, it might take some time.

 

If you have 2 apples, and take one away, half of the apples are left. That's math.

Nowhere in math is there a guarantee that an asymmetric object cut in half must have two sides identical. I'm not sure why you think that would be the case??? If I cut a hard boiled egg in half by length, one side has more mass than the other since eggs are asymmetrical. I could cut a hard boiled egg in half by mass, but I could do that with the asymmetrical apple too. But then the lengths of each half isn't equal. That's not a problem with math, it's how you want to approach the problem.

 

Why can’t it be the language of multiple things. I’m using English to communicate with you on a casual basis here but I also use English to communicate on a technical basis with my colleagues. It’s the same basic language but used in different ways.

The specifics of what you describe isn’t a problem with maths but a problem with your interpretations and definitions. “Half” can be used in an binary or analogue context. You could have half the mass of apple or your could have half the number of apple pieces. In addition to that “half” can be used in a more casual manner, where precision doesn’t matter (people often talk about “the bigger half” for example). All of these uses of the word can be accurate in context and just because they’re not all valid all of the time doesn’t mean they’re never valid in any other situation.

You’re using half in the casual manner not because maths is incapable of dealing with the concept but because you’re incapable of cutting an apple exactly in half. Your failure doesn’t mean exactly half suddenly becomes invalid as a general concept.

 

Indeed; and it's plenty descriptive, but not explanatory in the least WRT the phenomenon in question.

QM is not predictive? Really??

Sure, nobody can figure a way to describe the behavior with a purely deterministic model, but that does not address the "why" of the probabilistic nature of said behavior.

If you think such technology would be sufficient to explain the various psychological phenomena which are unique to the human condition, I suspect you haven't thought very much about what a human being is.

Neither, if I tried to use an apple as a screwdriver, would it be correct to say the apple failed.

You're in no position to make that claim, even neglecting metaphysical realities.

 

Science allows for exact measurement which eliminates approximation. The problem is not in vernacular, it is in your analogy.

 

Math is just a tool, that uses symbols to represent reality, and then we make the mistake of confusing the symbol with the thing it symbolizes. The word is not the object the word stands for. And we forget that as well. Then we build these structures of words, and eventually they no longer reflect reality, except as an idea. We also break the universe into bits, so that thought can handle it, and forget that the bits when added up will never equal the reality of the totality. David Bohm had much to say about this. So math is just a tool, and very useful, but it can never touch the reality of the totality. As long as we know that, its good to go. But many of us do not know that.

 

Math, like English, is applied to reality based on our conception of reality. Math can describe quantitative proportions. In other words, it seks out patterns and relations between one thing and another based on their various quantitative properties. In such a way, math is capable of describing only what can be described and only that which behaves as we believe all things to behave- that is, following natural laws. Try describing reality with pure math...and no words. All you have are meaninglss proportions and relativities that cannot account for the chaos factores in things like the eddies of whirlpools or sir streams. Math cannot describe you or where you came from, the organs you are made of, and their function relevant to each other. They only describe particular things about you.

This might be a flawed outlook, I agree, but at the moment, I believe that math is an inadequate language for reality. Words, actually, are much more flexible since we can, technically, invent any word for anything we see.

 

Technically, I suppose, there may be exact measurements, but I don't think so. Nothing is exactly self-contained, it's always reacting with the environment. On our human level of conception a thing may look the same and measure the same (like weight), on a smaller scale, it is constantly changing and interacting- losing and gaining matter and energy which means our exact mesurement is more like a "close enough" that we agree upon since the changes that do occur are to small to affect their applications to many or all of our uses for them.

However, as we seek to use and manipulate things on a more fundamental level, the little inconsistencies and variables that we once let slide become more and more important.

 

Physicists use math to describe the processes you are using as examples.

When dividing an apple between my kids I don't tend to focus on the molecular equivalence of the halves - it's not the point.

On the other hand, when the issue is "constantly changing and interacting - losing and gaining matter and energy" these characteristics are described with math. And, it took a lot of work to be able to measure some of these processes accurately.

Be careful or you'll be going in circles.

 

QM is not predictive by definition. There is no way to say spin is up or down without collapsing the wave equation. Before you do, it's 50/50 either way. If you think it's predictive you don't understand it.

Physics rarely explains why. Why do two masses attract each other? Why is the speed of light in a vacuum a singularity?

I have thought about what a human being is. Biophysics wasn't my major but I took a few electives precisely because I have thought about it. We are a collection of cells that obey the laws of physics. We don't have the technology to describe what that collection does, that doesn't mean we can't one day. We don't have computers that can map an entire brain in real time, yet.

I am in a position to say the brain is the most complex object in the universe. If you disagree, please provide an alternative example of the most complex object in the universe.

 

I would say we can invent any math for anything we see.

 

An apple is an odd object to choose to determine the language of the universe. While life may or may not be rare in the universe, it's pretty unlikely that apples are common. We might think of apples as everyday objects, but like most life they're incredibly complex and unique biological machines. So if you want to truly describe an apple, you're going to need more than elementary fractions.

I think you start to understand what's meant by math being the language of the universe if you ever take physics with calculus.... and then you realize you just hit the tip of the iceberg when you delve into quantum physics.

 

Congratulations. You have just pronounced QM scientifically worthless.

Why does the apple fall but not the moon?

Why is the sky blue?

Then you haven't thought about it very intelligently.

Given that cockroaches meet that definition every bit as well as human beings, I encourage you to refine it.

Then you've observed every other object in the universe. Right?

No one seems to have any idea about the composition of the human soul, but that is an obvious possibility.

 

No, you just don't understand QM works. It's scientific value is in its calculation of probabilities over long periods, not a particular prediction.

Lol, the moon does fall. That's why it doesn't fly away from the Earth. We can put apples in orbit too, there's probably some on ISS right now, or at least apple juice.

The atmosphere scatters blue light. Got any relevant questions?

Oh, and you present the composition of the the human soul as an obvious "possibility"? Well, please tell what the composition of the human soul is?

 

Math is a system of symbol manipulation that can be used to approximate most natural phenomenon but it isn't the phenomenon themselves and it works largely because there is usually not a need for more than a certain amount of precision.

 

which is utterly devoid of predictive value. Right?

But not like the apple, which comes to rest relative to the Earth. Newton wondered why, and found an answer.

And you're under the impression, perhaps, that this answer, like the answers to a jillion other "why" questions, does not proceed from the realm of physics?

So you've forgotten how the conversation began, probably on purpose.

No one seems to know, which obviously leaves open the possibility that it's more complex than the brain. You're welcome.

 

It's utterly devoid of absolute prediction. The value is in the nature of prediction, which isn't absolute. As I said, you don't understand it, I'll simplify it for you. If you have two starved tigers in a cage, both are man eaters, and you enter the cage. Which one will kill you first? If one of them bites you the other will instantly die electronically. You don't know which one will kill you (absolutely unpredictable) but there is a 100% chance one of them will kill you. Is there value knowing you will die if you enter the cage?

The apple thing and Newton probably never happened. But yes, he found an answer for the apple and the Moon. It was called gravity. Congratulations, you've learned the similarity between an apple and the Moon. It's called "mass".

Proceed from the realm of physics? No it proceeds from a human brain asking "why?" Of course physics is a set of rules describing the Universe, using a language called "math". The human brain asked the question, the human brain derived the rules, and the human brain invented the language. I'll ask it again, show me something more complex than that.

Physics doesn't explain why. You failed to ask the deeper question, which is not surprising in the least.

Lol, no one seems to know. Ok, how do cats go to the moon and back? Well, gee, no one seems to know (since it doesn't happen), but obviously leaves open the possibility that cats jumping to the moon and back is more complex than the human brain.

 

Equivocation noted.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Doesn't matter, because I can still predict that I'd be eaten.

Of course, which is why it's asinine to say QM is not predictive.

One cannot help but wonder what you hope to achieve by the pretense that they are mutually exclusive.

What the hell for?

OK, so 99% of the stupid wasn't enough for you.

Then as the enlightened one that duty is yours, so what the hell are you waiting for?

Well there's yer problem. You think I'm talking about something that doesn't exist, when nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

Physics is a set of good guesses made by humans that were confirmed within their scope by doing some calculations and countless measurements. Why did those particular guesses turn out to be more useful than others when it comes to describing nature? You can't answer that question using physics. As far as I can tell, why questions of that type usually lead nowhere. In the very best, extremely rare case, such a question could lead to a more fundamental guess, which has to incorporate the previous good guesses within their scope. This more generalized guess about nature's nature, however, won't provide an explanation for its own existence either.

Nevertheless, I'm fond of well placed why questions. If you keep asking a long enough series of why questions, everyone will be forced to either go in circles, if they're stubborn or scared, or boldly examine the edge of their personal territory of knowledge or belief. I would not recommend this on an internet forum though. It probably won't go well. As a kid, you will likely end up annoying your parents with your endless stream of why questions at some point. Among two people who enjoy teasing each other, however, it can be a fun game.

[video=youtube;wMFPe-DwULM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM[/video]