What qualifies as science?

[Write4U]

It is the material that proves 2+2=4 . Not the abstract form .

Right, that's what I said.

The abstract form would have no idea or concept as to where , 2+2=4 could be drawn from . Or understood from .

Of course abstract forms have no ideas or concepts, or purposes, but then material things (other than to a greater or lesser extent in living organisms), also have no ideas, or concepts, or purposes.

But plucking two apples from one tree and adding them to two apples plucked from another tree, does add up to four apples in toto. Isn't it amazing how that equation works everywhere in the universe (in that context)? Seriously.

 

[iceaura]

But plucking two apples from one tree and adding them to two apples plucked from another tree, does add up to four apples in toto.

Let's say from each tree's pov, figuring seven viable seeds per apple and that neither tree knows of the other tree, it equals 24 seeds (14 in base 10 - apple trees count in base five, like all members of the Rosaceae) - and no such addition of "apples from different trees" is a defined operation.

 

[Write4U]

But this may be of interest. I have not yet fully grasped the full implication, but it seems fascinating.

Discovering theTwo Opposing Types of Order
Very simply stated, at present most everyone, even in science, believes order is generally definable with a single concept. In most dictionaries order is defined as "a condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group." If we translate our sense of order into an image, we would draw an axis, with greater order in one direction and disorder in the opposite direction. Thus if the order of some system increases its disorder must decrease.

http://everythingforever.com/st_order3.htm

 

[NotEinstein]

How did these numbers come to be ?

They were derived them from set theory.

The abstract , is based on us . Or any thinking being .

It is not based on us. It is based on a couple of axioms. You need a thinking being to perform the process of derivation, but the result isn't "based on us" using any definition of "based on" I know of.

Not defined brought into , manifested , in the first place .

The form and the substance of the form is the essence of physics and mathematics .

Equations cannot exist without the fundamental existence of material form .

Are you saying that abstract concepts cannot exist without a thinking being coming up with them first?​

 

[NotEinstein]

Reverse your sentence and you will understand what I'm saying. You may not agree.

(You are dodging the question about what you meant with "interactions".) So mathematical functions give rise to physical laws? Partially, I can agree with that. However, you also need observations of reality, and only if we are talking about the physical laws as given by science, and are not referring directly to the behavior of particles and waves in reality.

IMO, mathematical functional constants are the (enfolded) imperatives on which physical laws are founded,

Usually, such laws start out as patterns that we see.

which in turn determine how physical things must interact and become physically explicated (unfolded).

No, the laws that we construct with maths are descriptive, not proscriptive.

p.s. the origin of the word Physics means "essence" or "natural", not "material stuff". i.e. "physics".

I use the word physics mainly to refer to the field of study called "physics".

 

[Write4U]

Let's say from each tree's pov, figuring seven viable seeds per apple and that neither tree knows of the other tree, it equals 24 seeds (14 in base 10 - apple trees count in base five, like all members of the Rosaceae) - and no such addition of "apples from different trees" is a defined operation.

The guy plucking two apples from two different trees knows how many apples he has in his basket. He is counting apples, not seeds or molecules or atoms. The apples may not even be of the same size or shape, but unlike the biblical story of "loafs and fishes", he can only share his bounty with three friends.
The rest is sophistry in context of the simple mathematics, that 2 + 2 = 4 (1 apple each for me and my three friends).

In the case of "unlike objects", I was going to cite an example of how 1 + 3 can produce a theoretically infinite dynamic process by introducing chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) molecules into the ozone layers in the Earth's atmosphere.

When UV radiation hits a CFC molecule it causes one chlorine atom to break away. The chlorine atom then hits an ozone molecule consisting of three oxygen atoms and takes one of the oxygen molecules, destroying the ozone molecule and turning it into oxygen. When an oxygen molecule hits the molecule of chlorine monoxide, the two oxygen atoms join and form an oxygen molecule. When this happens, the chlorine atom is free and can continue to destroy ozone. Naturally occurring chlorine has the same effect in the ozone layer, but has a shorter life span.

 

[Write4U]

(You are dodging the question about what you meant with "interactions".) So mathematical functions give rise to physical laws? Partially, I can agree with that. However, you also need observations of reality, and only if we are talking about the physical laws as given by science, and are not referring directly to the behavior of particles and waves in reality.

I can also agree with that. I believe in an earlier post I suggested that Physics and Mathematics have a relationship, perhaps somewhat comparable to the relationship of Space and Time, IOW a form of duality.

Usually, such laws start out as patterns that we see.

I agree, especially in the early days of scientific inquiry. But in modern day theoretical physics we can also use mathematics as predictive tools, such as how to actually create the Higgs boson, which merited a Nobel prize.

No, the laws that we construct with maths are descriptive, not proscriptive.

Did we not use applied theoretical mathematics to create a local condition for producing a Higgs boson at Cern?

I use the word physics mainly to refer to the field of study called "physics".

As has become customary in mainstream science, and in general I agree that the universe works as it does regardless of our symbolic representations. Of course, we don't control nature, it controls us.

But from what I have read, Bohm considered that current mainstream quantum physics may be limiting in scope, and not seriously considering the possibility of "hidden variables".

Quantum Bohmian Mechanics: David Bohm
The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) explains David Bohm's pilot wave & hidden variables of Bohmian Mechanics as Spherical In Wave determining future position of wave center 'particle'.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-quantum-bohmian-mechanics.htm

Perhaps the example of ozone destruction by CFCs (see above) might be an illustration of a previously hidden variable process? Perhaps insight in that process began with the question why a relatively small amount of free CFCs could create such havoc with the Earth's ozone in the atmosphere. Now we know that this process will continue to do so for a long time, even as we have stopped using CFCs (unless sequestered).

 

[NotEinstein]

I can also agree with that. I believe in an earlier post I suggested that Physics and Mathematics have a relationship, perhaps somewhat comparable to the relationship of Space and Time, IOW a form of duality.

That makes very little sense, as mathematics is completely independent from physics, and physics can exist without (the field of) mathematics. However, a universe with only space or only time is incomprehensible. And what about chemistry? It uses mathematics a lot too; how would it fit into your analogue?

I agree, especially in the early days of scientific inquiry. But in modern day theoretical physics we can also use mathematics as predictive tools, such as how to actually create the Higgs boson, which merited a Nobel prize.

So you agree with me that mathematics are not at the basis of physics. Good.

Did we not use applied theoretical mathematics to create a local condition for producing a Higgs boson at Cern?

No, we used a very very big machine.

As has become customary in mainstream science, and in general I agree that the universe works as it does regardless of our symbolic representations. Of course, we don't control nature, it controls us.

So you agree that the origin of the word physics isn't relevant to this discussion. Good.

But from what I have read, Bohm considered that current mainstream quantum physics may be limiting in scope, and not seriously considering the possibility of "hidden variables". http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-quantum-bohmian-mechanics.htm

Perhaps the example of ozone destruction by CFCs (see above) might be an illustration of a previously hidden variable process? Perhaps insight in that process began with the question why a relatively small amount of free CFCs could create such havoc with the Earth's ozone in the atmosphere. Now we know that this process will continue to do so for a long time, even as we have stopped using CFCs (unless sequestered).

And I don't see the relevance of this either, so no comment.

 

[Yazata]

That makes very little sense, as mathematics is completely independent from physics, and physics can exist without (the field of) mathematics.

Here's an introduction to various topics in physics as working physicists understand them, pitched at the advanced layman's level (lay people who have some science and math background). They were famously delivered at Stanford University Continuing Education to an audience heavily laden with Silicon Valley techies by Leonard Susskind (the string theory guy).

http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/classical-mechanics/2011/fall

So if "mathematics is completely independent from physics", then what's up with phase space, Lagrangians, least-action principles, Euler-Lagrange equations, symmetry and conservation laws, the Hamiltonian, Hamilton's equations, Liouville's theorem, poisson brackets, gauge fields and gauge invariance?

http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/quantum-mechanics/2012/winter

If "mathematics is completely independent from physics', then what's up with vector states, vector spaces and vector operators, matrix algebra, linear operators, commutators, Pauli sigma matrices, wave functions, inner products of system state vectors, probability amplitudes, density matrices and Fourier analysis?

http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/special-relativity-and-electrodynamics/2012/spring

If "mathematics is completely independent from physics", then what's up with the Lorentz transformation, reference frames, the relativistic velocity addition formula, invariant intervals, space and time-like intervals, space-time four-vectors, cross terms in the Lagrangian, the Lorentz force law, Einstein and Minkowski notation, tensors, Susskind's four fundamental principles that apply to all physical laws, Maxwell's equations, solutions of Maxwell's equations and the use of action, locality and Lorentz invariance to develop the Lagrangian for electrodynamics?

http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/general-relativity/2012/fall

If "mathematics is completely independent from physics", then what's up with the equivalence principle and tensor analysis, the geometries of flat and curved spaces, covariant and contravariant vectors and derivatives, geodesics, the metric for a gravitational field, the Schwarzschild metric, Kruskal coordinates, Einstein's field equations, the four-current, the continuity equation and the stress-energy tensor, or with how Einstein's equations can be linearized and how the linearized equation is a wave equation?

My point is that physics seems to be up to its eyeballs in mathematics.

So you agree with me that mathematics is not the basis of physics. Good.

I'm not convinced that it's possible to separate the two, without returning everyone to qualitative physics as it was in the late middle ages.

If we think of 'physics' as the system of ideas, concepts and models developed by human beings over the centuries so as to better understand the physical world, I think that it's indisputable that mathematics is inextricably intertwined with physics. I'd go so far as to say that the marriage of mathematics with our understanding of physical reality is the definitive change that defines the early (17th century) 'scientific revolution'.

So the (more metaphysical) question then becomes: What does the value of applied mathematics to physics tell us about the nature of physical reality? How must physical reality be such that mathematics is so fruitfully applicable to it?

My own (very tentative) answer would be that physical reality possesses a structure and behaves in ways that correspond to the mathematics. That's why I keep harping on the isomorphism idea. If the word 'mathematics' doesn't just refer to the symbolism scrawled on so many chalkboards, but refers as well to the abstract relationships that the symbolism capture (that's my point about mathematical Platonism), then I don't see anything wrong with saying that those same abstract relationships exist in physical reality too.

That's why mathematical physics works.

I don't really accept the idea that mathematics is all that physical reality is, that physical reality can be reduced to mathematics without remainder. But I do believe that whatever those abstract relationships are that mathematics explores, that they are truly present in physical reality as well.

Suskind's first two classes have been repackaged in the form of inexpensive (but rather difficult) books:

https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Minimum-Start-Doing-Physics/dp/0465075681

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Theoretical-Leonard-Susskind/dp/0465062903

 

[gmilam]

As a layman, I think it can be summed up as we are able to describe physical reality mathematically. But this does not mean that everything that can be described mathematically is physical reality.

 

[NotEinstein]

Here's an introduction to various topics in physics as working physicists understand them, pitched at the advanced layman's level (lay people who have some science and math background). They were famously delivered at Stanford University Continuing Education to an audience heavily laden with Silicon Valley techies by Leonard Susskind (the string theory guy).

http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/classical-mechanics/2011/fall

So if "mathematics is completely independent from physics", then what's up with phase space, Lagrangians, least-action principles, Euler-Lagrange equations, symmetry and conservation laws, the Hamiltonian, Hamilton's equations, Liouville's theorem, poisson brackets, gauge fields and gauge invariance?

Please point me to an axiom of mathematics that involves physics.

http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/quantum-mechanics/2012/winter

If "mathematics is completely independent from physics', then what's up with vector states, vector spaces and vector operators, matrix algebra, linear operators, commutators, Pauli sigma matrices, wave functions, inner products of system state vectors, probability amplitudes, density matrices and Fourier analysis?

Please point me to an axiom of mathematics that involves physics.​

http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/special-relativity-and-electrodynamics/2012/spring

If "mathematics is completely independent from physics", then what's up with the Lorentz transformation, reference frames, the relativistic velocity addition formula, invariant intervals, space and time-like intervals, space-time four-vectors, cross terms in the Lagrangian, the Lorentz force law, Einstein and Minkowski notation, tensors, Susskind's four fundamental principles that apply to all physical laws, Maxwell's equations, solutions of Maxwell's equations and the use of action, locality and Lorentz invariance to develop the Lagrangian for electrodynamics?

Please point me to an axiom of mathematics that involves physics.

http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/general-relativity/2012/fall

If "mathematics is completely independent from physics", then what's up with the equivalence principle and tensor analysis, the geometries of flat and curved spaces, covariant and contravariant vectors and derivatives, geodesics, the metric for a gravitational field, the Schwarzschild metric, Kruskal coordinates, Einstein's field equations, the four-current, the continuity equation and the stress-energy tensor, or with how Einstein's equations can be linearized and how the linearized equation is a wave equation?

Please point me to an axiom of mathematics that involves physics.​

My point is that physics seems to be up to its eyeballs in mathematics.

So? Doesn't mean you can practice physics without using any mathematics. Please point me to "you must use mathematics"-rule in physics (or science in general).​

At a conceptual level, physics and mathematics are not connected. That they work really really really well together is neither here nor there.

I'm not convinced that it's possible to separate the two, without returning everyone to qualitative physics as it was in the late middle ages.

Oh, I'm quite sure it would be absolutely disastrous, but not terminal. But all of a sudden now you are saying there will still be physics even though there is no mathematics?

If we think of 'physics' as the system of ideas, concepts and models developed by human beings over the centuries so as to better understand the physical world, I think that it's indisputable that mathematics is inextricably intertwined with physics.

Good thing I was talking about the field of study, and not merely the current state of it.

I'd go so far as to say that the marriage of mathematics with our understanding of physical reality is the definitive change that defines the early (17th century) 'scientific revolution'.

I don't disagree with you there.​

So the (more metaphysical) question then becomes: What does the value of applied mathematics to physics tell us about the nature of physical reality? How must physical reality be such that mathematics is so fruitfully applicable to it?

That is a deeply philosophical question to which I have no answer.​

My own (very tentative) answer would be that physical reality possesses a structure and behaves in ways that correspond to the mathematics. That's why I keep harping on the isomorphism idea. If the word 'mathematics' doesn't just refer to the symbolism scrawled on so many chalkboards, but refers as well to the abstract relationships that the symbolism capture (that's my point about mathematical Platonism), then I don't see anything wrong with saying that those same abstract relationships exist in physical reality too.

Sure, if that's your philosophical outlook, then yes.​

That's why mathematical physics works.

(With that philosophical outlook.)​

I don't really accept the idea that mathematics is all that physical reality is, that physical reality can be reduced to mathematics without remainder. But I do believe that whatever those abstract relationships are that mathematics explores, that they are truly present in physical reality as well.

Suskind's first two classes have been repackaged in the form of inexpensive (but rather difficult) books:

https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Minimum-Start-Doing-Physics/dp/0465075681

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Theoretical-Leonard-Susskind/dp/0465062903

I might take a look at these, thanks!​

​

 

[NotEinstein]

As a layman, I think it can be summed up as we are able to describe physical reality mathematically. But this does not mean that everything that can be described mathematically is physical reality.

But the reverse might also be true: it might turn out that there are parts to physical reality that cannot be described mathematically. So far, we are not aware of any, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Yazata]

As a layman, I think it can be summed up as we are able to describe physical reality mathematically. But this does not mean that everything that can be described mathematically is physical reality.

Oh yeah, I fully agree with that.

 

[Yazata]

But the reverse might also be true: it might turn out that there are parts to physical reality that cannot be described mathematically. So far, we are not aware of any, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I agree with that too, at least as a possibility.

If it was true, it would have some implications though, such as the impossibility of the theoretical physicist's holy grail, a 'theory of everything'.

(At least impossibility until physics develops some way of dealing with whatever aspects of physical reality can't be described mathematically.)

 

[Write4U]

That makes very little sense, as mathematics is completely independent from physics, and physics can exist without (the field of) mathematics.

That is a true statement only IF we don't care to know how or why physics works. IOW it is a teleological statement.

However, a universe with only space or only time is incomprehensible.

It is? I can conceive of space, without the necessity of considering time. Which again would be a teleological statement.

And what about chemistry? It uses mathematics a lot too; how would it fit into your analogue?

It's the fundamental mathematical structures of elements and their interactions, which require mathematics for us to be able understand symmetry such as chirality (for one). Did you not just say so yourself?

So you agree with me that mathematics are not at the basis of physics. Good.

No, On the contrary. To me, a universe where physical interactions occur without an underlying ordering system or structure would be incomprehensible.

The Standard Model,
Physicists explain the properties and forces between elementary particles in terms of the Standard Model – a widely accepted and "remarkably" accurate framework for understanding almost everything in the known universe, other than gravity.

And how do we know this?

(A separate theory, General Relativity, is used for gravity.) In this model, the fundamental forces in nature arise from properties of our universe called gauge invariance and symmetries. The forces are transmitted by particles known as gauge bosons.

And how do we know this?

You accused me of using teleological concepts for proposing a form of mathematical underpinning to everything that happens in the universe. But then you claim that mainstream science does not need mathematics to understand how it all works. And if you do agree that physics require the language of mathematics to make sense of it, that would suggest mathematics are an inherent property of the universe.

I suggest that the universe does not need to know mathematics, it is mathematical in essence.
Daisies, sunflowers, pinecones, galaxies do not need to know mathematics to produce the Fibonacci sequence. They just follow the natural ordering of spiral forms by a natural mathematical imperative which we have named the Fibonacci sequence. But for us to understand these natural imperatives (tendencies) we have to translate them into symbolic forms, which we have named Mathematics, not Physics.

The Standard Model consists of two separate and conflicting theories. Can physics solve this conflict without the use of mathematics? Mathematics is not just a human invented tool, it is the human symbolic representation of the language or exchange of information of all things and events within the universe.
At least that is the goal of Science, isn't it?

No, we used a very very big machine.

Built to exact applied mathematical standards, creating a local condition which was sufficiently close enough to local natural conditions necessary for the Higgs boson to become explicated. They don't exist independently by themselves. They exist in an enfolded mathematical implicate form (order) in the Higgs field and the appearance or unfolding of individual massive Higgs bosons are a result of symmetry breaking of the Higgs field.

So you agree that the origin of the word physics isn't relevant to this discussion. Good.

On the contrary, I think that your interpretation of modern physics are limited in scope. Remove the maths and what knowledge have you gained? Remove the tools we have created with applied mathematics and we are back to the stone age.
OTOH, today, our knowledge of mathematical functions can be used to predict future events, which can then be physically tested .

If you are allowed to claim that mathematics are an exclusive human invention which can only describe observed natural patterns as mathematical functions, I can say that the term physics is an exclusive human invention which describe only observed natural physical patterns of behavior, but not why they behave that way. Does that not suggest a teleological approach?

 

[NotEinstein]

That is a true statement only IF we don't care to know how or why physics works. IOW it is a teleological statement.

How can the truth of a statement depend on whether we care about how or why something mentioned in it works?

It is? I can conceive of space, without the necessity of considering time.

No, not merely "not considering time"; it is fully absent. How did that space form? How could you be sure it exists? Can you measure or interact with this space?
This universe cannot have any moving parts in it (obviously), so everything inside of it might as well not exist (Occam's Razor).
So what definition of "existing" are you using? I posit that any definition of "existence" or "reality" that one constructs that allows a universe with only space and no time to exist, also allows nonsensical things to exist in our universe, and thus is not a good definition of existence. Hence, the concept is incoherent and thus incomprehensible.

(I note that you didn't mention conceiving of a universe with only time.)

Which again would be a teleological statement.

I don't see what you imply?​

It's the fundamental mathematical structures of elements and their interactions, which require mathematics for us to be able understand symmetry such as chirality (for one). Did you not just say so yourself?

Please re-read my question. How does it fit into the analogue? Mathematics is space, physics is time, chemistry is what?

No, On the contrary. To me, a universe where physical interactions occur without an underlying ordering system or structure would be incomprehensible.

So you consider pattern recognition to be part of mathematics? Experiment: I let go of a pencil. It falls. I repeat this a couple of times. It falls every time. Now I make a prediction: the next time I let go of the pencil, I predict it will fall. Is that maths?
​

And how do we know this? And how do we know this?

Irrelevant to the discussion. I don't dispute we use mathematics for a lot in physics. I am only saying we don't need it for everything in physics.​

You accused me of using teleological concepts for proposing a form of mathematical underpinning to everything that happens in the universe. But then you claim that mainstream science does not need mathematics to understand how it all works.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said that the field of study called physics would still exist if mathematics didn't. I agree with you (and Yazata) that it would not be much, but it would still be there.

You do remember that we started going down this path because you said mathematics were essential to physics, right? I only need to prove the slightest sliver of physics can survive in an a-mathematical world. In this argument, I don't need to care about throwing away 99% of physics, as long as that 1% survives.

And if you do agree that physics require the language of mathematics to make sense of it, that would suggest mathematics are an inherent property of the universe.

Mainstream physics as we know it today indeed uses mathematics to make sense of a lot of its observations. Doesn't mean we can't (or needn't) replace it with something else. That X works really well is not proof that X is real, only a strong suggestion it might be.​

I suggest that the universe does not need to know mathematics, it is mathematical in essence.
Daisies, sunflowers, pinecones, galaxies do not need to know mathematics to produce the Fibonacci sequence. They just follow the natural ordering of spiral forms by a natural mathematical imperative which we have named the Fibonacci sequence.

​

Actually, no. They follow the physical principle of obtaining the lowest potential energy state, which results in Fibonacci sequences.

But for us to understand these natural imperatives (tendencies) we have to translate them into symbolic forms, which we have named Mathematics, not Physics.

The Standard Model consists of two separate and conflicting theories.

​

Which Standard Model are you referring to, because the one I know of (Standard Model of particle physics) is a single consistent construct.

Can physics solve this conflict without the use of mathematics?

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand?

Mathematics is not just a human invented tool, it is the human symbolic representation of the language or exchange of information of all things and events within the universe.

So you agree that mathematics is merely a descriptive thing, and cannot make things do stuff. Good.

At least that is the goal of Science, isn't it?

The goal of science is not inherently connected to mathematics. It just happens that mathematics works really really well to try and reach that goal.

Built to exact applied mathematical standards, creating a local condition which was sufficiently close enough to local natural conditions necessary for the Higgs boson to become explicated. They don't exist independently by themselves. They exist in an enfolded mathematical implicate form (order) in the Higgs field and the appearance or unfolding of individual massive Higgs bosons are a result of symmetry breaking of the Higgs field.

So you agree with me that we didn't directly "use applied theoretical mathematics", but built a machine. Which means your statement reduces from "maths is fundamental to nature" to "maths works really really well to model reality", which I don't disagree with.

On the contrary, I think that your interpretation of modern physics are limited in scope.

Please point out to me where I have disregarded parts of modern mainstream physics.

Remove the maths and what knowledge have you gained? Remove the tools we have created with applied mathematics and we are back to the stone age.

I don't disagree with you there, but this is (as I just pointed out) totally irrelevant to the discussion. The field of study called physics can still exist without mathematics; that is my point.
​

OTOH, today, our knowledge of mathematical functions

Erm, not just mathematical functions.

can be used to predict future events, which can then be physically tested .

But you also need physics (or chemistry, ...) for that. Mathematics alone does not make any predictions about the real world. Because, you know, maths being 100% abstract and all...

If you are allowed to claim that mathematics are an exclusive human invention which can only describe observed natural patterns

I never claimed that; please stop putting words in my mouth.

as mathematical functions,

Are all patterns modeled with mathematical functions? (I really don't know.)

I can say that the term physics is an exclusive human invention which describe only observed natural physical patterns of behavior, but not why they behave that way.

And I would agree with that, as does mainstream science. Physics is a descriptive model of the universe.

Does that not suggest a teleological approach?

​

Perhaps, but it does not in and of itself prove that nature obeys the laws. Heck, all I have to do is point to this URL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction#David_Hume
What law demands that the universe keeps following these patterns that we see and discover? Right, that's just an assumption. A good one, sure: it doesn't seem to have been broken in the past, but that's not proof that it won't be broken in the future. What certainty do we have that nature cannot all of a sudden "decide" to not do gravity anymore (completely breaking our models)? So anybody that says that the universe must behave in some way (i.e. mathematical), is automatically wrong. It's just a matter of figuring out where they went wrong.

 

[Write4U]

Before I lose this thought I'll just post this quickly. If anything it may be entertaining....

When a thing or field is symmetrical it is in a state of balance and has attained a state of greatest satisfaction.
When a thing or field is asymmetrical it is in a state of unbalance and will move in the direction of greatest satisfaction.
Symmetry breaking of a thing or field is causal to the dynamical action of each broken part trying to find greatest satisfaction.

P.s. I am working on a (hopefully) more comprehensive response.

 

[NotEinstein]

Before I lose this thought I'll just post this quickly. If anything it may be entertaining....

When a thing or field is symmetrical it is in a state of balance and has attained a state of greatest satisfaction.
When a thing or field is asymmetrical it is in a state of unbalance and will move in the direction of greatest satisfaction.
Symmetry breaking of a thing or field is causal to the dynamical action of trying to find greatest satisfaction.

P.s. I am working on a (hopefully) more comprehensive response.

"Satisfaction" usually needs a conscious mind, which a field (in general) does not possess. What do you mean exactly with "satisfaction"?

 

[Write4U]

"Satisfaction" usually needs a conscious mind, which a field (in general) does not possess. What do you mean exactly with "satisfaction"?

An abstract equation or axiom,

Axiom
mathematics
a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.

This axiom becomes expressed in the physical world as the principle of obtaining the lowest potential energy state
It all seems to possess a form of intelligence, this is why we have an intentional god religions.

But IMO, a state or field where things must behave by a form of mathematics would also seem to possess a form of intelligence, but that might be called a non intentional pseudo-intelligenc.

I believe this is what Tegmark is proposing . The apparent consistencies of universal functions are not the work of a great programmer, but are inherent potentials of the thing or field itself.

 

[Michael 345]

I believe this is what Tegmark is proposing . The apparent consistencies of universal functions are not the work of a great programmer, but are inherent potentials of the thing or field itself.

A sort of "Although I don't think I do obey the laws of physics which gives a passable imitation of purposeful actions"