Jump to content
Science Forums

Geometry As A Unifying Idea


Dubbelosix

Recommended Posts

Would you like to expand on this, which of the many ideas put forward are beyond the scope of falsification? 

 

 

Where to even start?  Without trying to compile some exhaustive list, many accept the theory that multiple, even infinite, alternative "universes" were generated with the big bang.   How ya ever gunna disprove that?

 

I've heard it said that we would need to build a particle accelerator with a diameter larger than the entire solar system to even try to disconfirm elements of string theory.  Anyone who wants to claim that this makes the theory "falsifiable" has my  sympathy.  Of course even within the contents of the theory, there are seemingly an infinite number of configurations which all predict the same result.  Which one of these would be "confirmed" by any given experiment, even assuming such was possible?

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...he thinks he may have new proof validating his theory...

 

 

Whatever "evidence" he thinks he may have, it certainly does not constitute "proof."  Like the rest of them, you can't really eliminate the possibility of "emergent gravity and spacetime" by any known empirical test.

 

Some may find this theory more satisfying, others may prefer theories which presuppose multi-verses, all depending on how they think it fits in with other components of view which they currently fancy.

 

Some of the medieval scholastic philosophers may have had better arguments to support their particular conclusion about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin than others.  That didn't make it "science," though.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I wonder how emergent spacetime correlates with peoples religious views.  

 

Bottom line, emergent spacetime appears to take the position that mind (information) precedes matter.  Possible, but unfalsifable.  But one could certainly read some religious overtones into this, if they were so inclined.  By the way, "geometry" is involved here.  It's a matter of two dimensions "creating" a third one.

 

What is mind?  No matter.  What is matter?  Nevermind.  (Bertrand Russell)

 

 

Maybe it's one or the other, maybe not.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its more to do with what space really is and how it unfolds. How many dimensions required to model reality satisfactorily, is all about geometry.

 

Bottom line is how the did we get here from the big bang, theories have changed over the years, and newer maybe more plausible ones keep on coming :) Its all smoke and mirrors, reflections of reality, from which we construct our understandings of the universe.  We hints of other dimensions with the ER=EPR conjecture, particles sharing the same wave functions separated by space. Its a question of how much do you believe the math, and how close to modelling/explaining reality is it.

 

Math is just a modeling tool, if you can math it in a certain way that doesn't mean it actually works that way, we model the universe but that doesn't mean the math explains the actual nature of the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Math is just a modeling tool, if you can math it in a certain way that doesn't mean it actually works that way, we model the universe but that doesn't mean the math explains the actual nature of the system.

 

 

Very astute, Vic.  It's a shame that so many people don't seem to realize that.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 but that also doesn't mean the math never explains the actual nature of the system which mathaphobes don't seem to realize. It depends on your skill with the tool. Math is, after all,  the language of the universe, I don't think it speaks or understands English very well. Things get lost in translation.

Edited by ralfcis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 It depends on your skill with the tool. 

 

Completely wrong, as usual, Ralf.

 

You're exactly the naive type  I had in mind when I said:

 

Very astute, Vic.  It's a shame that so many people don't seem to realize that.

 

It makes no difference if you're a 5 year old kid who is just learning that 1 + 1 = 2 or John von Neumann.  The degree of an individual's skill/talent cannot, and does not, alter the fundamental nature and character of math in the least.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No kidding, really?

 

 

Yes, really.  No kidding.  Not that it's something that you would EVER understand.  Like I done said:

 

It makes no difference if you're a 5 year old kid who is just learning that 1 + 1 = 2 or John von Neumann.  The degree of an individual's skill/talent cannot, and does not, alter the fundamental nature and character of math in the least.

 

 

It's the same with any tool.  One guy may be more skilled in aiming and using a rifle than another.  But neither of them changes the nature of the rifle in the least.  One doesn't turn a BB gun into an assault rifle by using it skillfully.  The inherent limitations of the tool are always there, no matter how skillfully you use it.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ralf, I've posted this quote (and others) from Einstein for you several times, thinking it might finally sink in some day.  It doesn't.  And won't.

 

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.  (Albert Einstein)

 

 

 

Your only comment is to say you don't agree with Einstein about anything.   And why should you?   You understand math a hundred times better than poor Al could ever have hoped to.

 

Aint that right?

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could be the greatest mathematician in the world and still never contribute anything worthwhile to physics - sad thing is, many gifted physicists mathematically, have wasted countless years on theories that cannot be disproven... The base of a theory lies in imagination first and foremost, we use mathematics as a tool to describe the system. The universe is mathematical - from Pythagoras' theorem to the acceleration of gravity, our limitations is not with the tools, but with our minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

many gifted physicists mathematically, have wasted countless years on theories that cannot be disproven...

 

 

Very true and an extreme example of this is string theory.  Billions in valuable but limited research funds have been spent on it over the last several decades.   For years it dominated the field, and one could hardly get any kind of grant in "physics" unless it was for the purpose of pursuing string theory. 

 

It's really nothing but a parlor game for mathematicians.   By Popper's standards it's not physics, or even science, all at.  Being unfalsifiable, it is what he would call mere "pseudo science."  Basically just metaphysical speculation with no practical or scientific value at all.  What a waste

 

 

Mathematics deals exclusively with the relations of concepts to each other without consideration of their relation to experience.  (Albert Einstein)

 

Many prominent theoretical physicists have been horrified by this attempt to turn physics into math.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed Witten is a perfect example... he was seen very bright by his peers, who were excellent scientists, ended up wasting an entire lifetime on the ''theory'' of strings. There may be people out there who are Ed Witten fans and detest me for stating what I have said... but its also true that I don't actually care. Sometimes, a physicist can be too smart for his own good, to the point it is idiocy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The universe is mathematical - from Pythagoras' theorem to the acceleration of gravity, our limitations is not with the tools, but with our minds.

 

I can't agree with this, however.  Math is not "in the universe" but rather in our minds.  The pythagorean theorem, for example, only holds in two dimensional space.  Beyond that you basically need to move to some type of Riemannian geometry, etc., where parallel lines DO meet, triangles do NOT add up to 180 degrees, etc.  Euclidean geometry is no longer applicable.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The universe follows mathematical structure - Tegmark is the biggest physicist I know of that brings attention to this. It is no accident a universe can be described through a logical means, and certainly not a mistake when we found the real world application of mathematics in almost everything a mathematician can develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is no accident a universe can be described through a logical means, and certainly not a mistake when we found the real world application of mathematics in almost everything a mathematician can develop.

 

 

I won't try to go all Kantian, but in his terms math is just another "category of understanding," not something which exists in the world.  You could say the same thing about everyday languages, i.e. that "we found the real world application of language in almost everything a linguist can develop."

 

That doesn't mean that language is "out there" in the world, just waiting to be discovered.  It is invented, not discovered.  Of course it is still very valuable in helping us form some understanding of what we "see" in the world.

 

I've seen a lot of philosophers claim that we cannot think without language.  Of course that can't be true.  The ability to think must precede the acquisition of any linguistic facility.  We couldn't learn a language unless we were already capable of thinking.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...