Re: Math & physics.

Hi Steve (and glird).

On Jul 6, 11:34 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:d325424f-6b44-4e32-8da3-20601d87898f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



To Mike.

On Jul 4, 3:04 pm, Mike <mj...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
Please keep in mind that physics has always been motivated by trying
to
explain our observations, the physical quantities that we encounter.
So
physics will never be complete by explaining physical quantities in
terms of
other physical quantities. For the question will then remain as to how
you
explain these new physical quantities. My best understanding is that
explanations about ANYTHING (including physics) will not be complete
until
they are derived from reason itself. For if you derive things from
logic
itself, then there is nothing left to question except reason itself.
And it
is difficult to question the validity of logic since it is just the
simple
algebra of existence and non-existence in the form of true and false.

I've thought about and debated these things for many years. And now,
finally, I feel I'm on the verge of just that - deriving physics from
logic
itself. All that is needed is to label propositions (or events if you
prefer) with coordinates - a parameterization of logic, if you will.
And the
path integral of quantum mechanics can be derived rather easily, and
soon a
form of general relativity as well, I have reason to believe. If you
are
interested in seeing this derivation, it can be viewed on-line at:

http://hook.sirus.com/users/mjake/QMfromlogic.htm

It should only be a 10-15 minute read for those skilled in
propositional
logic, set theory, and first year calculus.
Good luck,
Mike

I've had the good fortune to discuss math with matheticians
face to face, and always tried to listen very carefully for the
ineundo within their philosophy, from which a generalized
impression is created suggesting math is an infinite number
of logical systems each within it's domain of applicability,
with the application to physics being one highly specialized.

I agree there may be an infinite number of logical systems possible to invent, but mathematical logical systems are invented by
conscient beings, like humans, and there may not be an infinite number of us.

I'd even go further and suggest there are an infinite number
of mathematical models able to describe the universe, such
as there is an infinite number of ways to hammer in a nail.
Much of the choice is subjective, such as, ease of use and
easy to teach and learn, provided it's in reasonable agreement
with known (empirical) measurement.

To me, to think that a model describes the universe demands that there is an independent exterior universe to describe. If not, what
is the model a model of? And if there exists a single, completely independent external universe (i.e., matter physically exists in a
physical extended space at an instant in time *independent* of any consciousness), there is then only "one truth" and presumably
only *one* of our models is "the best." There may be a tie between models, but if there really is only one independent external
universe, these ties probably will eventually be broken. One theory, one model of all the ones possible to invent, will probably win
out, if there is indeed an independent external world.

The exception is when a mathematical form is adopted that
produces new predictions, that vary from the conventionally
accepted theory, that can provide a paradigm shift, and in
that way, guide us into a higher plateau of knowledge.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Will also post to spf.

A big problem now, to me, lies with QM. This theory basically has "given up" in trying to describe an independent external world.
The QM physicists say there is no independent external world. But I really think almost every learned scientist rejects that in
their gut. If there really does exist an independent external world, I predict one day QM will be abandoned. Not just incorporated
as a limiting or special case of some more general theory, but out right abandoned. This issue of an independent external
world/universe appears to me to be that important to get right. If we have gotten it wrong, like I think the QM physicists have
done, we may have painted ourselves into a corner that we may never get out of. There may never be a logically consistent merger of
GR and QM, and if so, it will be because of QM, not GR, imo.
Steve Bell

I'm ok with QM, if this ref is ok with you,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
I also find unification of QM and GR to be
moderately straightforward.

Steve, in your post above you use these terms,
"independent exterior universe"
"external world/universe"
are those some kind of ying-yang existential zen
philosophy? A ref would be helpful ;-).
I come from a sci-tek background, and have problems
with advanced philosophy.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why Einstein Proposed That Speed Of Light Is Invariable....
    ... invariant (i.e. has the value c in any inertial frame). ... the laws of physics usually pertain to that which is *measured*. ... quantities and the frame-independence of other physical quantities. ... some absolute independence of measurement. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Math & physics.
    ... the physical quantities that we encounter. ... explanations about ANYTHING (including physics) will not be complete ... to think that a model describes the universe demands that there is an independent exterior universe to describe. ... outside of my body, I think that particles exist, not waves, at an instant in time. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Data types in physics
    ... Do you know a field of physics or math that studies these ... I don't see how you can find levels of fundamentality here. ... for physical quantities into numbers. ... numbers, per se, in nature (though there are dimensionless ratios). ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Math & physics.
    ... the physical quantities that we encounter. ... explanations about ANYTHING (including physics) will not be complete ... I agree there may be an infinite number of logical systems possible to invent, but mathematical logical systems are invented by ... to think that a model describes the universe demands that there is an independent exterior universe to describe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Calculating Newtons in Joules and Joules/s
    ... Since your only exposure to physics is popularizations, ... physical quantities in equations like this. ... J is one Joule. ... N is one Newton. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading