# Thread: math relations to physics...

1. For one year after my matriculation...i ve been searching for answer what is relation of phyx with maths......How physisist derive equation using analysing reality?.....what tool they use of maths to do that?......Is there something in mathematics besides numbers and formulas?....How i can combine phyx and maths using my reality analyzation to derive eqaution?...literally how maths work???

2.

3. I think this is best answered by taking a class in physics. The need for mathematics will become readily apparent after even the most basic study of physics. What do you mean by matriculation? If you are entering a university without having studied any physics, you are in big trouble.

4. I'm not against you here Harold, just in case you might think this from what follows. I think to understand what Arslan may be saying is that if we use math as a tool, if we are to question our observations of reality by using physical tools, should we also not question the nature of math itself as a tool? For the most part, most of today's arguers of science ignore the proof of math as an essential reality, trust it to use as a tool, but beg that we accept the physical perceptions AND the interpretations by humans as sufficient reasons to have faith in our conclusions within science.

In simplest form, it is like this:

(1) Observation A
(2) Observation B
(3) Math
Therefore,
(4) Conclusion

While (1) and (2) are accepted inductively through science, (3) is only assumed and for most is only assumed true for how it models or connects the observational premises. We need closure, not simply 'trust' that math is a function of reality. But according to things like Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, we have abandoned this attempt and only adapted to accepting things that demonstrate a deviation from logic through time. That is, we trust what we see even if it conflicts with logic. This acceptance is no different than a person judging their reality upon a potential hallucination. It might be demonstrated with good backing that one has hallucinated after-the-fact by them realizing that this might be due to their consumption of a hit of acid. But regardless, the hallucination is still a 'real' factor even if others do not experience it around them at that time.

[In case you don't know of Gödel's Theorems, basically they are arguments to demonstrate that math (and all logic) reduces to a form of liars paradox which shows that math/logic cannot be closed.

"This sentence is false."

If the sentence above represents a 'theorem' (closed truth), the contextual meaning implies that the theorem it is speaking of [itself] is not true. To help make this better, think of the same form of sentence as follows:

"You are NOT reading this sentence."

The problem should be more obvious. While you have read the sentence as a 'truth', just because the content denies it in meaning, it still doesn't prove that you didn't read it. As such, Gödel's theorems fail because is doesn't make the distinction between the theorem and the semantic interpretation of it. ]

5. Originally Posted by Scott Mayers
I'm not against you here Harold, just in case you might think this from what follows. I think to understand what Arslan may be saying is that if we use math as a tool, if we are to question our observations of reality by using physical tools, should we also not question the nature of math itself as a tool? For the most part, most of today's arguers of science ignore the proof of math as an essential reality, trust it to use as a tool, but beg that we accept the physical perceptions AND the interpretations by humans as sufficient reasons to have faith in our conclusions within science.

In simplest form, it is like this:

(1) Observation A
(2) Observation B
(3) Math
Therefore,
(4) Conclusion

While (1) and (2) are accepted inductively through science, (3) is only assumed and for most is only assumed true for how it models or connects the observational premises. We need closure, not simply 'trust' that math is a function of reality. But according to things like Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, we have abandoned this attempt and only adapted to accepting things that demonstrate a deviation from logic through time. That is, we trust what we see even if it conflicts with logic. This acceptance is no different than a person judging their reality upon a potential hallucination. It might be demonstrated with good backing that one has hallucinated after-the-fact by them realizing that this might be due to their consumption of a hit of acid. But regardless, the hallucination is still a 'real' factor even if others do not experience it around them at that time.
It seems to me it is far more straight forward. Is not maths simply a quantitative branch of logic?

We use maths in science, when we want to describe the relationships between entities in our models of physical reality in a quantitative way.

The efficacy of the maths we use is tested by the degree of success of the model. If it doesn't work, then there is something wrong with the model, be it the maths or in some other respect.

6. Scott, what you have written just amounts to navel gazing, as far as I am concerned. What happens is that you make an observation, and you look for a model that explains your observation in the best manner possible. You are not seeking some sort of metaphysical truth. You are just trying to find the rules of the game, with the knowledge that your next observation may well require you to revise the model.

7. Originally Posted by Scott Mayers
I'm not against you here Harold, just in case you might think this from what follows. I think to understand what Arslan may be saying is that if we use math as a tool, if we are to question our observations of reality by using physical tools, should we also not question the nature of math itself as a tool? For the most part, most of today's arguers of science ignore the proof of math as an essential reality, trust it to use as a tool, but beg that we accept the physical perceptions AND the interpretations by humans as sufficient reasons to have faith in our conclusions within science.

In simplest form, it is like this:

(1) Observation A
(2) Observation B
(3) Math
Therefore,
(4) Conclusion
The above is incomplete and reflects your skewed view about mainstream science. You left out the biggest part of the scientific method:

(1) Observation(s)
(2) Mathematical modeling
(3) Conclusion
(4) A battery of experiments designed to falsify (3)
(5) If no experiment falsifies conclusion (3), then mathematical modeling (2) holds
(6) When and if an experiment is found to falsify (3), the modeling (2) gets refined (like the precession of Mercury producing the emergency of GR from Newton theory of gravitation).

8. The math, as is logic, requires a meta-proof of reasoning 'prior' to its method to prove it. But using it as you mention is only begging the trust of the math upon the measures we use and then using the trust of that math to measure reality. It's circular. "Circularity" doesn't necessarily have to be a faulty thing. This is what we call definitions. If we 'define things based on everything we can be certain of, this might be alright. But for humans, this only means a convention of those using it. One way to do this is to assume absolutely nothing at all. Then, if you can demonstrate that this leads to at least a 'something', the logic you build upon it is closed. This has been resisted because (a), no one can accept that some absolute nothingness can exist when they feel that they do exist and MUST do so in order to question it, and (b), the idea of 'contradiction' is only understood upon how we use it to dismiss "irrational" thinking.

I think this can be demonstrated but requires an a better approach to proving it.

9. Originally Posted by Scott Mayers
The math, as is logic, requires a meta-proof of reasoning 'prior' to its method to prove it. But using it as you mention is only begging the trust of the math upon the measures we use and then using the trust of that math to measure reality. It's circular. "Circularity" doesn't necessarily have to be a faulty thing..
There is nothing "circular" about the way mainstream scientists model reality using math.

10. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Scott, what you have written just amounts to navel gazing, as far as I am concerned. What happens is that you make an observation, and you look for a model that explains your observation in the best manner possible. You are not seeking some sort of metaphysical truth. You are just trying to find the rules of the game, with the knowledge that your next observation may well require you to revise the model.
Yes Harold, I agree entirely. Actually, I'm not sure Scott has grasped the intrinsic modesty of science.

All we make are models, and all scientific "truth" is provisional, that is, treated as probably true until a defect is found with the model. There is no claim to ultimate reality, except in the sense that any scientist has to believe (I think) that there is an ultimate reality that he or she is seeking to model - with what we all hope are decreasing degrees of imperfection.

11. Originally Posted by Scott Mayers
The math, as is logic, requires a meta-proof of reasoning 'prior' to its method to prove it.
To paraphrase: "It works, bitch".

But using it as you mention is only begging the trust of the math upon the measures we use and then using the trust of that math to measure reality.
Whut?
We model reality.
And the models, largely, work.
(When they don't we usually find out why: either because we left something out or we did the calculations incorrectly).

One way to do this is to assume absolutely nothing at all.
And thus get nowhere.
And maths starts with the minimum number of asumptions it can get away with.

I think this can be demonstrated but requires an a better approach to proving it.
Or a better approach from you toward making your case.

12. For the contradiction and the use of it in logic you might want Pseudo Scotus as a starter.

13. Originally Posted by Scott Mayers
The math, as is logic, requires a meta-proof of reasoning 'prior' to its method to prove it. But using it as you mention is only begging the trust of the math upon the measures we use and then using the trust of that math to measure reality. It's circular. "Circularity" doesn't necessarily have to be a faulty thing. This is what we call definitions. If we 'define things based on everything we can be certain of, this might be alright. But for humans, this only means a convention of those using it. One way to do this is to assume absolutely nothing at all. Then, if you can demonstrate that this leads to at least a 'something', the logic you build upon it is closed. This has been resisted because (a), no one can accept that some absolute nothingness can exist when they feel that they do exist and MUST do so in order to question it, and (b), the idea of 'contradiction' is only understood upon how we use it to dismiss "irrational" thinking.

I think this can be demonstrated but requires an a better approach to proving it.
Scott, I have already mentioned what I think may be a misconception on your part about science. But to pick up on your focus here on logical proof, Science is not concerned with logical proof of anything. It is an empirical discipline, founded in observations of the physical world. Most people find Popper's idea of falsifiability, but lack of provability, is a good way to view the models of science.

So I simply don't think that in science we care whether maths is a closed logical system or not. If it enables successful predictive models to be built, that is good enough.

14. Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Harold14370
Scott, what you have written just amounts to navel gazing, as far as I am concerned. What happens is that you make an observation, and you look for a model that explains your observation in the best manner possible. You are not seeking some sort of metaphysical truth. You are just trying to find the rules of the game, with the knowledge that your next observation may well require you to revise the model.
Yes Harold, I agree entirely. Actually, I'm not sure Scott has grasped the intrinsic modesty of science.

All we make are models, and all scientific "truth" is provisional, that is, treated as probably true until a defect is found with the model. There is no claim to ultimate reality, except in the sense that any scientist has to believe (I think) that there is an ultimate reality that he or she is seeking to model - with what we all hope are decreasing degrees of imperfection.
It i important to note that each model is more precise than the one it replaced. Science is a convergent process.

15. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Scott, what you have written just amounts to navel gazing, as far as I am concerned. What happens is that you make an observation, and you look for a model that explains your observation in the best manner possible. You are not seeking some sort of metaphysical truth. You are just trying to find the rules of the game, with the knowledge that your next observation may well require you to revise the model.
What is "navel gazing"? (I haven't heard of this before.) As for observation, this is a function of our perceptions through our senses. This is all we have to deal with to determine external reality. But the way our consciousness reasons is only associative (inductive reasoning through samples by taking the 'triggered' majority of events). Formal reasoning of which we learn to deduce in thought cannot be ignored though.

There are various 'models' involved. The first one is the actual perception of the observations. These do not mean anything until you can 'connect' them in a way to act. The intermediate factors between perception and acts are thought. It is this that gets ignored because although we agree they exist, we can only demonstrate them through the actions of communicating them yet think of them as 'non-existent' as they are merely the 'energy' of the process between actions. Then, the extra 'models' we use are simply generalized versions of our modeled perceptions in which we 'beg' that others follow as a sample of our individual experiences. But these still have to follow the formalized logic or they reduce to simple 'triggers' of a majority mindset of the individuals agreeing to these generalized models. Like I said, 'truth' is not democratic. At best, a physical reality would have to be based on at least a unanimous majority. And this still does not assure that the physical reality is true to nature upon these human beliefs.

16. Originally Posted by Scott Mayers
And this still does not assure that the physical reality is true to nature upon these human beliefs.
Yes, nature does not care about your fringe ideas. This is why you should not be allowed to hijack other threads in order to keep pushing your ideas.

17. Originally Posted by Scott Mayers
Originally Posted by Harold14370
Scott, what you have written just amounts to navel gazing, as far as I am concerned. What happens is that you make an observation, and you look for a model that explains your observation in the best manner possible. You are not seeking some sort of metaphysical truth. You are just trying to find the rules of the game, with the knowledge that your next observation may well require you to revise the model.
What is "navel gazing"? (I haven't heard of this before.) As for observation, this is a function of our perceptions through our senses. This is all we have to deal with to determine external reality. But the way our consciousness reasons is only associative (inductive reasoning through samples by taking the 'triggered' majority of events). Formal reasoning of which we learn to deduce in thought cannot be ignored though.

There are various 'models' involved. The first one is the actual perception of the observations. These do not mean anything until you can 'connect' them in a way to act. The intermediate factors between perception and acts are thought. It is this that gets ignored because although we agree they exist, we can only demonstrate them through the actions of communicating them yet think of them as 'non-existent' as they are merely the 'energy' of the process between actions. Then, the extra 'models' we use are simply generalized versions of our modeled perceptions in which we 'beg' that others follow as a sample of our individual experiences. But these still have to follow the formalized logic or they reduce to simple 'triggers' of a majority mindset of the individuals agreeing to these generalized models. Like I said, 'truth' is not democratic. At best, a physical reality would have to be based on at least be a unanimous majority. And this still does not assure that the physical reality is true to nature upon these human beliefs.
I think most scientists, reading this, would respond like Johnson: "I refute it thus." [kick].

Maybe you will get a better reception of these ideas in the Philosophy section.

18. The relationship of mathematics and physics.....:

Mathematics is an abstract system that creates interesting theorems and relationships between its elements.

Physics is a means of generating models about the physical world, based ultimately upon sense-data.

The interface between the two is provided my units of measurement eg. seconds, metres, kilograms.

This allows for a mapping between a part of mathematics and a model for a part of the real world.

So in summary the relationship between maths and physics is a mapping.

19. Originally Posted by Howard Roark
Originally Posted by Scott Mayers
And this still does not assure that the physical reality is true to nature upon these human beliefs.
Yes, nature does not care about your fringe ideas. This is why you should not be allowed to hijack other threads in order to keep pushing your ideas.
"Fringe ideas?" Note that when I used this word, I was referring to the boundaries (or 'fringes') of theoretical science. Theories put forward in the areas of the very large and the very small by authorities are not always distinguishable from religion. The fact that some of you act to 'protect' the virtue of some issues of contention that people raise by silencing them through areas like "trash" sections or waste time insulting others are actual EMPIRICAL PROOF that such a NON-SCIENTIFIC attitude is at foot here. I suggest that if you, Howard, are just not intending to nay-say people, speak to me with respect to the logic instead of acting as a 'troller' who gets better attention by accusing others of 'trolling', etc.

20. Originally Posted by Scott Mayers
"Fringe ideas?" Note that when I used this word, I was referring to the boundaries (or 'fringes') of theoretical science. Theories.
If I were you I wouldn't pay attention to those kinds of responses. E.g. in this case it was casually assumed that "fringe" has only the derogatory meaning that it is sometimes used to mean when in fact its sometimes used otherwise. As you clearly stated, fringe can refer to the boundaries of mainstream science but still within valid hard core science. It's called fringe because it's not mainstream. E.g. see Fringe science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some people might have considered Bohm's theories on quantum mechanics fringe science.

M. Gardner: Science — Good, Bad and Bogus, Prometheus Books. Martin Gardner gives a skeptics view of the fringe science associated with EPR.

Of course if you stick only to fringe science and you don't understand the problems with the science you're toying with which is fringe then you risk becoming a pseudoscientist, big time!

21. Originally Posted by Scott Mayers
Originally Posted by Howard Roark
Originally Posted by Scott Mayers
And this still does not assure that the physical reality is true to nature upon these human beliefs.
Yes, nature does not care about your fringe ideas. This is why you should not be allowed to hijack other threads in order to keep pushing your ideas.
"Fringe ideas?" Note that when I used this word, I was referring to the boundaries (or 'fringes') of theoretical science. Theories put forward in the areas of the very large and the very small by authorities are not always distinguishable from religion. The fact that some of you act to 'protect' the virtue of some issues of contention that people raise by silencing them through areas like "trash" sections or waste time insulting others are actual EMPIRICAL PROOF that such a NON-SCIENTIFIC attitude is at foot here. I suggest that if you, Howard, are just not intending to nay-say people, speak to me with respect to the logic instead of acting as a 'troller' who gets better attention by accusing others of 'trolling', etc.
The point is that you have nothing in terms of valid science:

1. Mo mathematical formalism
2. No experimental data
3. As such, your "stuff" is just a string of buzzwords that ends up in the Trash or in Pseudoscience.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement