/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6189170]

Why do numbers and math explain nature so well?

[Anonymous No.6189176]

>>6189170
Why do words and language explain nature so well?

[Anonymous No.6189186]

Why does the symbolic string "idiot" describe OP so well?

[Anonymous No.6189190]

>>6189170
>>6189176
Because they were modeled for and created in nature. Nobody asks why their shoe fits them so well.

A more interesting question is whether or not our notions of logic and reason are tied to our observations of the universe, or if there is an objective logic that would only be obfuscated if causality was not so easily observed.

[Anonymous No.6189225]

>>6189176
It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6189250]

They don't explain shit. They represent.

[Anonymous No.6189420]

>>6189250
They make predicitions more accurate than any language

[Anonymous No.6189461]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1010309227321

[Anonymous No.6189476]

You think we invented math. Math has always existed and works as nature's code, we just gave it a language.

[Anonymous No.6189497]

>>6189420
>implzing math is not a language

Du bist ein idiot

[Anonymous No.6190135]

Fractal's explain nature, and fractals are random correct?

So mathematics explains nothing in nature.

[Anonymous No.6190293]

>>6190135

is this b8?

[Anonymous No.6190341]

>>6189420
Never understood some peoples definition of 'prediction'. If the expected outcome doesn't happen 100% of the time how is it a prediction?

[Anonymous No.6190373]

>>6190135
You're waifu a shit

[Anonymous No.6190394]

Why does a puddle of water fit the ground so well? Obviously, the ground was shaped to accommodate the puddle.


Seriously though bro, numbers are a representation of logic, as it functions in our universe, I shouldn't have to explain why logic explains our universe.

[Anonymous No.6190393]

>>6189170
\jewcommand{\t}[1]{\displaystyle{#1 \atop {#1~~#1}}} \t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\triangle}}}}}}}

[Anonymous No.6190399]

Because numbers spawned the universe.

[Anonymous No.6190400]

Why do logic explain our universe so well?

[Anonymous No.6190403]

>>6190394
You shouldn't have to or you can't?

[Anonymous No.6190406]

Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH) is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".[2][3] The hypothesis suggests that worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions, physical constants, or altogether different equations may be considered equally real. Tegmark elaborates the MUH into the Computable Universe Hypothesis (CUH), which posits that all computable mathematical structures exist.

[Anonymous No.6190405]

>>6190341
>If the expected outcome doesn't happen 100% of the time how is it a prediction?

100% accuracy is not inherent to the concept of prediction.

[Anonymous No.6190407]

OP asks a profound question.
>undergrands and highschools get frustrated

>cuz DATS HOW IT JUST IS LOL U MAD?!

such intellect

[Anonymous No.6190409]

Numbers and math could describe anything so well.

They are general modeling tools.

[Anonymous No.6190411]

>>6190406

THis is neat ^


Alexander Vilenkin comments[13] (Ch.19, p203) that "the number of mathematical structures increases with increasing complexity, suggesting that 'typical' structures should be horrendously large and cumbersome. This seems to be in conflict with the beauty and simplicity of the theories describing our world". He goes on to note (footnote 8, p222) that Tegmark's solution to this problem, the assigning of lower "weights" to the more complex structures ([4] sec. V.B) seems arbitrary ("Who determines the weights?") and may not be logically consistent ("It seems to introduce an additional mathematical structure, but all of them are supposed to be already included in the set").

[Anonymous No.6190412]

>>6189170
>Why do numbers and math explain nature so well?

Numbers they describe nature so well because we developed math to describe abstract concepts from nature.

[Anonymous No.6190413]

>>6190407
No, it's a stupid question.
Math is a language we created to describe logic, as logic functions in our universe. It describes nature because that's what it's modeled after, the laws of nature.

[Anonymous No.6190414]

>>6190409
>Numbers and math could describe anything so well.

except things that actually matter, human interaction, love, fear, war, history, God, confidence, beauty, health, morality, etc

[Anonymous No.6190418]

>>6190413
>No, it's a stupid question.

Confirmed for 16 year old autistic downsyndrome child..

There have been great books written on this subject by physicists, philosophers, mathematicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

[Anonymous No.6190419]

>>6190414

>literally lists 8 things that don't matter and 1 that does

nice try

[Anonymous No.6190421]

>>6190418
And it's ridiculous that they have to question this.
It's like asking "why does english allow us to communicate so well?". It's a stupid obvious question, we made it to communicate. We made math, to describe logic. Nature functions on logic. It's not unreasonable, we simply did a good job at describing logic.

[Anonymous No.6190423]

Number is the ruler of forms and ideas, and the cause of gods and demons.
--Pythagoras

[Anonymous No.6190425]

>>6190414
>human interaction, love, fear, war, history
economics

>God
{}

>confidence, beauty, health, morality
mathematical principles of evolutionary psychology

Anyway, ultimately, everything in the universe is a consequence of the fundamental laws of physics.

[Anonymous No.6190428]

>>6190413
No it's not. That is retarded, and you obviously haven't spent more than 2 minutes thinking about what math actually is, or why people think about it.

[Anonymous No.6190431]

>>6190428
can we get some real points? Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous No.6190434]

>>6190421

>it's ridiculous when some of the greatest minds have contemplated this question seriously and written books about it


You don't actually understand the question yet...or you are too limited to see it's importance

[Anonymous No.6190440]

>>6190421
>Nature functions on logic.
wut? Why would nature function on logic? That's like saying nature functions on philosophy. ...no it IS saying that nature functions on philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6190441]

It's very difficult to answer this question.

In one sense we create/adapt math to fit the situation...
The mathematics at hand does not always work. For example, when mere scalars proved awkward for understanding forces, first vectors, then tensors, were invented.

Perhaps aspects of the universe are mathematically structured, isomorphic in some sense and imply one another---like the inverse square law of universal gravitation necessarily follows from the conservation of energy and of space having three dimensions. Measuring the exponent in the law of universal gravitation is more a test of whether space is Euclidean than a test of the properties of the gravitational field.

[Anonymous No.6190444]

>>6190434
Asking "how did we do such a good job" makes sense, but ultimately, we just did a damn good job. We created notation for logic, and it worked, that's why it works.

>>6190440
Yes, it obeys logic, you don't have two atoms, and suddenly you have three atoms and more energy then you started with. Nature obeys our number system, if there is X energy when we start, there is X energy when we're done.

All we did was create a notation system for the basic elements of our universe.

[Anonymous No.6190446]

Anthropic principle. If the fundamental rules weren't either simple and consistent, or ridiculously contrived, life couldn't evolve.

Here we are, so wherever we showed up had to be somewhere the rules are simple and consistent.

Simple and consistent rules are inherently easy to model by math.

Meanwhile on Discworld, "Why do numbers and math explain nature so poorly?"

[Anonymous No.6190447]

>>6190434
Also, another good question would be "why is our universe so consistent that it can be described with a single set of rules", but "why do the notation we made to describe these rules describe these rules" is a stupid question.

[Anonymous No.6190451]

>>6190447
>"why is our universe so consistent that it can be described with a single set of rules",

But we can't. And that's a different question.


>"why do the notation we made to describe these rules describe these rules" is a stupid question.

No one mentioned notation. You really sound confused.

[Anonymous No.6190456]

>>6190444
The conservation of conservative properties, which you are describing, is something that we indeed observed. But that has nothing to do with logic and very little to do with math.

[Anonymous No.6190476]

>>6190405
ya it is

[Anonymous No.6190488]

Pure math actually describes almost nothing, and is pretty much only "applied" in computer science.

[Anonymous No.6191212]

>>6190476

check your dictionary and any science book.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prediction

: a statement about what will happen or might happen in the future

[Anonymous No.6191229]

>>6191212
That definition is equivalent to a guess, but I don't have to guess at what temperature water will boil.

[Anonymous No.6191251]

>>6191229

a prediction is a statement about the future, either an educated guess or uneducated guess.

the outcome is actually irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.6191278]

>>6189170
Math is designed to solve complicated problems. If math couldn't describe things we see, then our math is inconsistent or useless.

>inb4wedontcreatemath

[Anonymous No.6191295]

Polly tol wally I'll tell ya buout duh mathematicks. It's a combinationio of both! Goose. You see

We start out with goofy doofy stuff dat we know is true and a solid, integrated part of nature. Like numbahs and and and like other stuff. Stuff we don't construct nuttin just find it n' extend ya feel.

Then we use dis starting points to start constructing new logical ideas that are man-made rather than an integral part of nature! In a first course of linear algebra you'll see dis. We create stuff to make it fit well with other stuffs.

Mathematickas are just like many other sciences. We starts out all good and natural but den we be humans and extend yo!

Think about electricity my brother paladin. The basis of it is purely natural and we discovered it my friend, like a man discovers his feminine side. BUT THEN we develop based off those logical ideas of the way electrons work to create man made things!

There is man mathematickas and there is snail mathematickas my friend. But can math explain love?

[Anonymous No.6191302]

it's funny how 7/10 people on /sci/ are too stupid to even understand this question and what it implies

only a handful of replies are worth reading in this thread

[Anonymous No.6192477]

I never understood how math explains anything. Blame the education system for all I care, I just memorized the equations for abstract problems and followed the steps to solve them.

For example, what the hell is a 1? I know its a number but how does it explain anything? What does a 1 look like?

[Anonymous No.6192566]

>>6192477
>What does a 1 look like?

Why should it look like something?

[Anonymous No.6193116]

>>6189476 'Course not. Maths are just a mind creation. A good one though.

[Anonymous No.6193125]

>>6190488 Quantum therory uses a lot of pure maths too.

[Anonymous No.6193131]

>>6192477
natural numbers are a common, abstract property shared by every set that can be put in a biijective relation

as in: primitives saw some trees, had some rocks with them, put a rock under each tree and concluded there was the same "quantity" of rocks and trees. they then labeled every "quantity class" with a name, and understood that putting together "two" and "two" always resulted in "four", whether it was trees or rocks