[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 447x444, 1317691081248.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4633076 No.4633076 [Reply] [Original]

Is the Universe fundamentally governed by the principles of Mathematics or are Mathematics something we created to understand the Universe?

>> No.4633080

Yes.

>> No.4633083

math is a social construct. we use it to understand/describe the universe.

>> No.4633084

The latter. The former is a fundamental postulate of the mathematical sciences.

>> No.4633093

>>4633083

But, doesn't math still fundamentally describe everything even if we didn't create it?

>> No.4633094

No

>> No.4633095

so-so

>> No.4633097

>>4633093

No, try quantifying human behavior. It's hard.

>> No.4633101

>>4633093
>But, doesn't math still fundamentally describe everything even if we didn't create it?

Yes, but that still doesn't imply that the universe ifs fundamentally governed by math.

Just like you can tell a story in any language you like, it doesn't mean that the story is fundamentally in that language.

Math can describe everything yes, but it is still a tool, it is a construct of the human mind, that gives the human mind the ability to define and make sense of things in a logical way, that doesn't mean that the universe itself does addition and integrals to find out what happens next.

>> No.4633110

>>4633093
>>4633093
Some bits of maths happen to provide good models for the universe but as far as we know everything is just a model, so it's silly to think that the universe "obeys" teh maths. The mathematical relations in het physical sciences fit the universe.
But what does category theory describe? What does what do a bunch of different pure algebras describe?

We might end up discovering something that they provide a good model for, but when pure math gets made it doesn't have anything to do withthe universe. People are just coming up with some rules and seeing what happens.

>> No.4633114

>>4633110

I can see where you're coming from, but no matter what if we invented it or not, Light would still move 186,000 miles per second. Then you ask >well what are miles per second but a social construct, but nonetheless, that speed is still there. The relations in a Unit Circle will always exist whether we made them or not. A triangle's degrees will always add up to 90 degrees, no matter how we quantify it.

I do feel like it's both to some degree, but I feel like that most of the social construct is just giving it names, but in the end of the day, math still governs everything invisibly.

>> No.4633119

math is something created solely by human beings. for example, when Hamilton "discovered" the quaternions, it wasn't something pre-established.

i dont think math govern the universe, but rather that we created math by observing the world (ex: Newton created diffential calculus to -simply said- describe the motion of objects in a rigorous manner) and use our fondamental intuition (ex: what we describe as "1" took with himself via what we describe as "+" gives what we describe as "2").

math are uncannily accurate at describing the wolrd because we shaped math following to the world.

there was an interesting article on scientific american about this (i dont recover it).

>> No.4633121

Maths is the entirety of valid analytical thought. So it's not that it governs the universe, but the universe is subject to whatever constraints it imposes on it.

>> No.4633128

>>4633114

will always add up to 180 degrees*

what the fuck was i thinking

>> No.4633135

our mathematics are just a formal way we devised to represent the patterns, structures etc that are inherent to the universe !

The universe is mathematizable, that's a fact, because same causes have same consequences and stuffs like that.

The real question would be about the uniqueness of our mathematical concepts. And by concepts, I am not referring to the notations and symbols

>> No.4633132

>>4633119

found it!
>Scientific American, August 2011
>page 60, "Why Math Works", by Mario Livio

>> No.4633142

>>4633076
The universe isn't governed, you damned theist.

>> No.4633147

Qualia. Just sayin'.

>> No.4633149

The main reason I wish we could, one day, contact an extraterrestrial civilization, is to see how do they do Math. Seriously, I think that could radically change our comprehension of nature.

>> No.4633150

I believe math draws its axioms from reality so thus mathematics is not independent of the universe rather it exists in its state because of it.

>> No.4633151

>>4633114
I think we're at corss purposes a little bit, or have different ideas about what "governs" means.
Taking the unit circle for example, you're right. I'm not saying that we invented the logic. Or that it's arbitrary to our race.
If you set up the axioms for euclidean geometry, then logically it is definitely correct that you will find all the established results of the unit circle.

So the logic of maths, the process that happens after you set up the axioms is universal, non-arbitrary, and objective.

>> No.4633153

>>4633114
>Light would still move 186,000 miles per second
A meaningless statement. Any unitful constant has the value it has because we defined the units that way. The only physically meaningful constants are the unitless ones, like the fine structure constant.

>A triangle's degrees will always add up to 90 degrees, no matter how we quantify it.
lrn2differentialgeometry

>> No.4633156

>>4633114
What about a triangle that has 3 right angles? Your premise is flawed.

>> No.4633158

>>4633076

>Is the Universe fundamentally governed by the principles of Mathematics or are Mathematics something we created to understand the Universe?

Yes.

>> No.4633163

Pure math is Number Theory, Set theory and Logic (not exactly as so in applied math). Number theory is certainly "made up" in that it revolves around how we use symbols to represent quantities. Set theory too is pretty made up. Logic however is pretty natural. It's one thing predictably following another within the context of behaviors. Generally logic can be extracted from nature through observation and description. To put it simply, it's hard not to stumble upon logic eventually. Even if our brains work against it from time to time.

Things like geometry, algebra, linear algebra, and calculus are tools that help us understand things. They are tools that can be used to describe the behavior of things in nature, but they are not nature themselves.

>> No.4633166

An equivalent question is: "is my cock inside her pussy or is her pussy around my cock?"

>> No.4633168

>>4633163
Logic is not concrete sorry.

>> No.4633172

>>4633076
Mathematics is a framework of rules we construct. Of the infinite possible systems we might construct, we chose the systems that are the most useful (i.e. those that fit the world around us best).

>> No.4633175

>>4633168
Yeah it is.

>> No.4633176

>>4633163
Stupidest thing I read today.

>> No.4633182

>>4633175
No. Godel incompleteness theorem etc.

>> No.4633186
File: 153 KB, 1000x1247, 133332612552.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4633186

>>4633163
>geometry is not nature itself
I beg to fucking differ.

The former, OP.

>> No.4633199

>>4633176
>>4633168

>Be iron-age sheep herder
>Chilling under a shady tree
>Notice the leaves move when the wind blows
>Notice that the leaves don't move when the wind isn't blowing
>If the leaves of the tree are moving, the wind is blowing!
>seems legit
>wait
>What if an animal or person shakes the branch?
>Then the leaves will move despite what the wind is doing
>Guess my previous statement didn't make much sense
>I wonder if this kind of thinking applies to everything?
>Maybe I should invent a method for making statements about the world and checking if they follow correctly...

>> No.4633210

>>4633186

You're one of those faggot science fans who lays images of geometric shapes over leaves and shit then claims nature is full of geometry.

>> No.4633216

In some respects yes, and some, no. The universe isn't governed by anything. Mathematical rules do not dictate nature, they just describe them.

The way I think of it is, things just happen a certain way. They go on to happen the same way every time, because why wouldn't they? It doesn't make sense for 2 situations that happen in the exact same way to achieve 2 different results. These "similarities" that occur every time become "rules", not to govern but just describe

>> No.4633225

>>4633210
>implying nature isn't full of accidental geometry.

Fuck you, guy. Form = function. Function = form.
The form (3d structure, ie, geometry) of a protein has a HUGE FUCKING DEAL in determining what it does. If you have a misfolded protein, you are going to have problems. And some of those problems could be prions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion)) that coerce other proteins to fold incorrectly and then you are FUCK. All because of a difference in geometry.
So fuck you, guy. Clearly you do not understand biology.

>> No.4633226
File: 19 KB, 350x272, HA_HA_HA_OH_WOW..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4633226

>>4633163
>Pure math is Number Theory, Set theory and Logic

Go to bed, highschooler.

>> No.4633230

mathematics - abstract entity that doesn't even exist.

Mathematics is the process which describes the relations amongst the abstract numbers.

Mathematics exists outside and independently of the Universe.

>> No.4633234 [DELETED] 

>>4633226

check Benacerraf mang.
The failure of the principia mathematica shows that set theory is inconsistent with mathematics.

>> No.4633242

>>4633163


Benacerraf "What Numbers Could Not Be"

Come on mang.

>> No.4633245

Could we argue the same about Time and the measurements we use to record it?

>> No.4633249

>>4633245
yeah but the answer would still be >>4633083

>> No.4633269

>>4633210
I laughed out loud.
Are you joking or are you seriously that naïve?

>> No.4633281

>>4633226

>/sci/ full of aspie know-it-alls
>guy pretends to know-it-all
>other know-it-alls get mad

lol

>> No.4633282

>>4633281
He's wrong and I'm right. Where's your problem?

>> No.4633284

another tegmark thread.

>> No.4633285

>>4633282

>I'm right

About what? You didn't provide an argument.

>> No.4633288

>>4633249

our representation of the concepts into a language is socially constructed, but even in a universe without humans - mathematics would still exist - though merely abstractly.
No offense man.

>> No.4633298

>>4633285
I am right in ridiculing him for being a fool.