• math, is it just physics?

    From sobriquet@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 28 21:56:00 2025
    We often hear claims that math has nothing to do with reality and is
    just something that exists in our imagination or some platonic realm of idealized forms.

    For instance in the intro to this recent yt contribution:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzuDSTamzrE

    On the other hand there seems to be mounting evidence that the patterns
    in physics match up in intriguing ways with abstractions on a conceptual
    level.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OxVsVUesSc

    So in a way one could claim that concepts like integers and their
    properties and relationships can be more or less empirically observed in
    the behavior and properties of things like elementary particles such as electrons or fields.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sobriquet@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 29 01:10:11 2025
    Op 28/01/2025 om 23:46 schreef FromTheRafters:
    sobriquet wrote :
    We often hear claims that math has nothing to do with reality and is
    just something that exists in our imagination or some platonic realm
    of idealized forms.

    For instance in the intro to this recent yt contribution:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzuDSTamzrE

    On the other hand there seems to be mounting evidence that the
    patterns in physics match up in intriguing ways with abstractions on a
    conceptual level.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OxVsVUesSc

    So in a way one could claim that concepts like integers and their
    properties and relationships can be more or less empirically observed
    in the behavior and properties of things like elementary particles
    such as electrons or fields.

    There's also this:

    https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

    I'm learning german and french, so I ask chat gpt to pronounce every
    sentence in english, german and french. It does so with a very strong
    english accent. I tell it to get rid of the accent. it does so and it
    sounds pretty good. However as soon as I paste the next paragraph, the
    strong english accent is back. I remind it that I want it to pronounce
    the text without an accent and it complies. However, as soon as I go
    to the next paragraph, the strong accent returns.. AAARRRRggh!!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From WM@21:1/5 to sobriquet on Wed Jan 29 09:48:47 2025
    On 28.01.2025 21:56, sobriquet wrote:

    So in a way one could claim that concepts like integers and their
    properties and relationships can be more or less empirically observed in
    the behavior and properties of things like elementary particles such as electrons or fields.

    Or bricks, marbles, people etc. The natural numbers have been abstracted
    from reality. The laws like "the existence of n implies the existence of
    n+1" were so evident, that no axioms appeared necessary before Dedekind,
    Peano, Schmidt etc. Only Cantor's assumption of an actual set with |ℕ|
    being a fixed quantity greater than all numbers is not abstracted from
    reality.

    Regards, WM

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joes@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 29 10:46:40 2025
    Am Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:48:47 +0100 schrieb WM:
    On 28.01.2025 21:56, sobriquet wrote:

    So in a way one could claim that concepts like integers and their
    properties and relationships can be more or less empirically observed
    in the behavior and properties of things like elementary particles such
    as electrons or fields.
    Or bricks, marbles, people etc. The natural numbers have been abstracted
    from reality. The laws like "the existence of n implies the existence of
    n+1" were so evident, that no axioms appeared necessary before Dedekind, Peano, Schmidt etc. Only Cantor's assumption of an actual set with |ℕ| being a fixed quantity greater than all numbers is not abstracted from reality.
    Oh PLEASE show me something physically infinite.

    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sobriquet@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 29 12:45:59 2025
    Op 29/01/2025 om 11:46 schreef joes:
    Am Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:48:47 +0100 schrieb WM:
    On 28.01.2025 21:56, sobriquet wrote:

    So in a way one could claim that concepts like integers and their
    properties and relationships can be more or less empirically observed
    in the behavior and properties of things like elementary particles such
    as electrons or fields.
    Or bricks, marbles, people etc. The natural numbers have been abstracted
    from reality. The laws like "the existence of n implies the existence of
    n+1" were so evident, that no axioms appeared necessary before Dedekind,
    Peano, Schmidt etc. Only Cantor's assumption of an actual set with |ℕ|
    being a fixed quantity greater than all numbers is not abstracted from
    reality.
    Oh PLEASE show me something physically infinite.


    How about space? Or would you claim that if we emit photons in opposite directions on a straight line/trajectory, they would eventually meet up, provided they don't run into anything else?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Burns@21:1/5 to joes on Wed Jan 29 13:58:38 2025
    On 1/29/2025 5:46 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:48:47 +0100 schrieb WM:
    On 28.01.2025 21:56, sobriquet wrote:

    So in a way one could claim that concepts like
    integers and their properties and relationships
    can be more or less empirically observed
    in the behavior and properties of things like
    elementary particles such as electrons or fields.

    Or bricks, marbles, people etc.
    The natural numbers have been abstracted from reality.
    The laws like
    "the existence of n implies the existence of n+1"
    were so evident, that no axioms appeared necessary
    before Dedekind, Peano, Schmidt etc.
    Only Cantor's assumption of
    an actual set with |ℕ| being a fixed quantity
    greater than all numbers
    is not abstracted from reality.

    Oh PLEASE show me something physically infinite.

    I can't show it to you, but
    what if physical evidence showed that
    something physically infinite might exist?
    That strikes me as just.as.good.as showing you,
    for the purpose of deciding whether
    mathematicians should be allowed to speak of
    infinite things.

    Consider the cosmos,
    of which our observable universe is
    a small and possibly.infinitesimal part.

    Our observations to date are best explained by
    a cosmological curvature with a value in
    a narrow range around 0.

    If our local patch is typical,
    and what we observe locally holds throughout,
    then
    an observed curvature > 0 indicates
    a finite cosmos much bigger than the observable,
    and
    an observed curvature ≤ 0 indicates
    a infinite cosmos.

    The latest I've heard,
    the finite/infinite question is still up in the air.
    I consider that to be where it should be
    until we have good reasons which bring it down.


    Math, is it just physics?

    Mathematicians will do what mathematicians do,
    but some of what they do will be encouraged,
    if it is found to be useful elsewhere.
    Including, but not limited to, in physics.

    The idea (suggested in other threads) that
    mathematicians should only do useful.elsewhere math
    has the way this works exactly backwards.

    Mathematicians can't limit themselves to
    what will some day find a use elsewhere.
    How could they possibly know that?

    Physicists, faced with a new problem,
    look at what math has already been done
    for help in describing and reasoning about it.

    Bernhard Riemann (1826 -- 1866)
    did not work on differential geometry
    _for general relativity_ (1915)
    He couldn't have.

    Einstein couldn't know someone else's work
    was useful before that work was done.
    He couldn't have.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stefan Ram@21:1/5 to sobriquet on Wed Feb 5 12:01:19 2025
    sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:
    We often hear claims that math has nothing to do with reality and is
    just something that exists in our imagination or some platonic realm of >idealized forms.

    A ton of math stuff is just us taking real-world connections and
    boiling them down to their essence. So it's no shocker that we can
    turn around and spot these stripped-down ideas out in the wild again.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stefan Ram@21:1/5 to sobriquet on Wed Feb 5 12:12:33 2025
    sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:
    How about space?

    Take the finite quotient of differences of position and time of
    a car and you get an approximation to its current speed. Now let
    the difference become /infinitely small/ and you get the exact value
    of the current speed of the car in that moment /in the real world/.

    Achilles can never overtake the tortoise? Calculate the
    /infinite series/ and get the correct answer: Achilles
    can overtake the tortoise /in the real world/.

    So, infinity is everywhere!

    |Look into infinity, all you see is trouble.
    Bob Dylan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mild Shock@21:1/5 to Stefan Ram on Wed Feb 5 13:13:42 2025
    sci.physics has probably never heard of emergence.
    You can easily have the following case:

    - As a substrate a System A, with Laws X
    - On top of it a System B, with Laws Y

    Just look at Game of Life by Convay. Its all
    patterns and in the linguistics of the observer,

    that we interpret blinking cells as a glider.
    But Convay was not the first, von Neuman pionieered:

    John von Neumann's universal constructor is a self-
    replicating machine in a cellular automaton (CA)
    environment. It was designed in the 1940s, without
    the use of a computer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor

    Mostlikely Physics fails for such emergent behaviours,
    it even cannot deploy its tools of order reduction,
    where micro levels are modelled by macro levels,

    so how did Physics get dismissed from its Garden of Eden?

    Stefan Ram schrieb:
    sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:
    We often hear claims that math has nothing to do with reality and is
    just something that exists in our imagination or some platonic realm of
    idealized forms.

    A ton of math stuff is just us taking real-world connections and
    boiling them down to their essence. So it's no shocker that we can
    turn around and spot these stripped-down ideas out in the wild again.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mild Shock@21:1/5 to Mild Shock on Wed Feb 5 13:36:22 2025
    Sabine Hossfelder is probably the king in lamenting
    the loss of Garden of Eden in physics. In one video

    she discusses emergence a little bit:

    This New Idea Could Explain Complexity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw9sr05Vtso

    But she doesn't have a single video about genetic
    programming (GP). Which refers to:

    HOLLAND J. H. 1975. Adaption in Natural and
    Artificial Systems. University of Michigan
    Press, Ann Arbor.

    On the other hand she refers to:

    The term "lumpability" was first introduced by John
    G. Kemeny and J. Laurie Snell in their 1976
    book "Finite Markov Chains."

    Which could be indeed helpful in the context
    of Deep Learning.

    Mild Shock schrieb:

    But there will be not a revival of study of emergence,
    or interest in genetic programming, because the field

    has been sliently overtaken by a) Deep Learning and
    b) Chinese People, just watch what they are doing:

    2011 Paper: Bilinear Deep Learning for Image
    Classification (Zhong et al.)
    stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with momentum

    Since randomized algorithms are used so basically
    forms of genetic programming that mimic evolution.

    The 2011 paper marks the beginning of deep learning,
    it received further refinements in the 2014.

    Mild Shock schrieb:

    sci.physics has probably never heard of emergence.
    You can easily have the following case:

    - As a substrate a System A, with Laws X
    - On top of it a System B, with Laws Y

    Just look at Game of Life by Convay. Its all
    patterns and in the linguistics of the observer,

    that we interpret blinking cells as a glider.
    But Convay was not the first, von Neuman pionieered:

    John von Neumann's universal constructor is a self-
    replicating machine in a cellular automaton (CA)
    environment. It was designed in the 1940s, without
    the use of a computer.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor

    Mostlikely Physics fails for such emergent behaviours,
    it even cannot deploy its tools of order reduction,
    where micro levels are modelled by macro levels,

    so how did Physics get dismissed from its Garden of Eden?

    Stefan Ram schrieb:
    sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:
    We often hear claims that math has nothing to do with reality and is
    just something that exists in our imagination or some platonic realm of >>>> idealized forms.

       A ton of math stuff is just us taking real-world connections and
       boiling them down to their essence. So it's no shocker that we can
       turn around and spot these stripped-down ideas out in the wild again. >>>



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mild Shock@21:1/5 to Mild Shock on Wed Feb 5 13:18:57 2025
    But there will be not a revival of study of emergence,
    or interest in genetic programming, because the field

    has been sliently overtaken by a) Deep Learning and
    b) Chinese People, just watch what they are doing:

    2011 Paper: Bilinear Deep Learning for Image
    Classification (Zhong et al.)
    stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with momentum

    Since randomized algorithms are used so basically
    forms of genetic programming that mimic evolution.

    The 2011 paper marks the beginning of deep learning,
    it received further refinements in the 2014.

    Mild Shock schrieb:

    sci.physics has probably never heard of emergence.
    You can easily have the following case:

    - As a substrate a System A, with Laws X
    - On top of it a System B, with Laws Y

    Just look at Game of Life by Convay. Its all
    patterns and in the linguistics of the observer,

    that we interpret blinking cells as a glider.
    But Convay was not the first, von Neuman pionieered:

    John von Neumann's universal constructor is a self-
    replicating machine in a cellular automaton (CA)
    environment. It was designed in the 1940s, without
    the use of a computer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor

    Mostlikely Physics fails for such emergent behaviours,
    it even cannot deploy its tools of order reduction,
    where micro levels are modelled by macro levels,

    so how did Physics get dismissed from its Garden of Eden?

    Stefan Ram schrieb:
    sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:
    We often hear claims that math has nothing to do with reality and is
    just something that exists in our imagination or some platonic realm of
    idealized forms.

       A ton of math stuff is just us taking real-world connections and
       boiling them down to their essence. So it's no shocker that we can
       turn around and spot these stripped-down ideas out in the wild again. >>


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sobriquet@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 5 22:49:47 2025
    Op 05/02/2025 om 13:12 schreef Stefan Ram:
    sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:
    How about space?

    Take the finite quotient of differences of position and time of
    a car and you get an approximation to its current speed. Now let
    the difference become /infinitely small/ and you get the exact value
    of the current speed of the car in that moment /in the real world/.

    Achilles can never overtake the tortoise? Calculate the
    /infinite series/ and get the correct answer: Achilles
    can overtake the tortoise /in the real world/.

    So, infinity is everywhere!

    |Look into infinity, all you see is trouble.
    Bob Dylan



    We have a concept of infinity, but perhaps it's a misconception. Maybe
    things are finite and in our fantasy we can go to infinity, but in
    reality it doesn't work that way.
    Things often look continuous because they are composed of such minuscule
    units and in our imagination we can take a quantity of gold and
    subdivide it into smaller quantities of gold and we can repeat that step infinitely often.
    But we know that we will reach atoms of gold eventually and we can not
    split them up into smaller quantities of gold.
    The same might be true for space and time itself. So it would be
    premature to claim that infinity exists or doesn't exist while we still
    have no comprehensive theory that accounts for everything (space, time, information, energy, matter).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stefan Ram@21:1/5 to sobriquet on Thu Feb 6 16:04:42 2025
    sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:
    We have a concept of infinity, but perhaps it's a misconception. Maybe
    things are finite and in our fantasy we can go to infinity, but in
    reality it doesn't work that way.

    Reality's out of our reach. To get a good look at the world up
    close, you need some serious juice. There are certain distances
    we'll never be able to check out 'cause even all the energy in
    the universe wouldn't cut it.

    By the same token, there are spots in the cosmos so far out that
    we'll never catch a glimpse of what's beyond them. They're booking
    it away from us faster than light can make the trip.

    As for the infinite or infinitesimal in physics, it's just
    a simplified way of thinking about how things work at
    the largest or tiniest levels. It gets the job done for
    a lot of purposes, while reality is out of our reach.

    |There are times when I look in the mirror,
    |I expect to see a younger man.
    |We are living in the real world,
    |And we can't get out.
    "Real World" - Peter Green Splinter Group

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)