See the short easy read at
http://members.aol.com/randaminor/mathuniv.html
Regards,
john reed
26
Feb
Why the mathematics fits the universe so well
Logic — math, philosophy & computational aspects
logic, math, philosophy, math games, math help, mathematical logic, philosophy of education, math facts
RandaMinor wrote:
> See the short easy read at
> http://members.aol.com/randaminor/mathuniv.html
> Regards,
> john reed
Physicists always exagerate how "fits so well"
actually fits the universe. Logic fits the
universe much better than mathematics does.
> "james d. hunter" wrote:
> Physicists always exagerate how "fits so well"
> actually fits the universe. Logic fits the
> universe much better than mathematics does.
Randaminor writes:
I agree with you completely. Logic fits our minds better as well. Mathematics
is the handmaiden of reason… its not the other way around as you correctly
point out.
My highest regards
john reed
To suggest that Mathematics fits the univesre is absurd!
Do we suggest that the best way to undestand Shaspspear is by anaylysing each
individual letter of his writings – NO!
Why not? The universe has to keep to rules else there would be utter chaos.
Why not say everything has an equation to explain it? Maybe its only human
nature which has no rules.
Brijesh <brijesh.mal…@gecm.com> wrote in message
news:3871B694.A809B952@gecm.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> To suggest that Mathematics fits the univesre is absurd!
> Do we suggest that the best way to undestand Shaspspear is by anaylysing
each
> individual letter of his writings – NO!
Mathematics is (part) of this Universe.
"Sir Knowitall" <fell_joinedby…@one.net.au> wrote:
> Mathematics is (part) of this Universe.
Come on now, you must be kidding: There are plenty of things
that are "(part) of this Universe" that do not fit it particularly well
(astrology, spiritualism, shareholder-value ideology and
economics in general, come to mind immediately).
The problem is NOT (primarily) whether mathematics "is
(part) of this Universe" (although, in the case of mathematics,
this might possibly be disputed, depending on what you mean
by "(part) of the", and "Universe"): The problem is, rather,
how and why these two entities fit so well (i.e. why
mathematics seems so unreasonably efficient as regards
our understanding of this Universe). Being (part) of this
Universe in the most general sense, is trivially true for
all kinds of sensible and nonsensical theories that
we know of alike – including many intermediate shades,
of course.
———-
»A search through the indexes of three leading textbooks in
macroeconomics reveals no entries under any of the following
subjects: environment, natural resources, pollution, depletion.«
– H. Daly: ‘Beyond Growth’
<heb…@ibmhatespam.net> wrote in message
news:38769a7b_1@news1.prserv.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In <8563mm$ls…@nnrp1.deja.com>, robertjones8…@my-deja.com writes:
> > Mathematics does describe our universe very well. I believe
> >there are at least two reasons for this.
> >1. In some cases the math was taylor made for the very purpose
> >of describing the universe. An example is calculus which Newton
> >built especially to do physics with.
> >2. Math is empirical. It is a science. It is about OUR universe.
> >If we lived in a different universe our math would be forced to
> >be different, logic would be different (like Quantum logic), even
> >probability theory would be different. All knowledge of every
> >kind is empirical, about OUR universe.
> According to mathematician Gregory Chaitin,
> math is quasi-empirical.
> In a nutshell, Godel discovered incompleteness, Turing discovered
> uncomputability, and I discovered randomness – that’s the amazing fact
> that some mathematical statements are true for no reason, they’re true
> by accident. There can be no "theory of everything," at least not in
> mathematics….
and Mr. Chaitin has never gotten away with his SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE nonsense
in sci.logic. Mathematics is the discipline for emperical science,
accidents are the SUBJECTIVE inverse of discipline. Karl M
Christian Stapfer <chstap…@bluewin.ch> wrote in message
news:8554v5$aai$1@bw107zhb.bluewin.ch…
> "Sir Knowitall" <fell_joinedby…@one.net.au> wrote:
> > Mathematics is (part) of this Universe.
> Come on now, you must be kidding: There are plenty of things
> that are "(part) of this Universe" that do not fit it particularly well
> (astrology, spiritualism, shareholder-value ideology and
> economics in general, come to mind immediately).
This universe does not have objective `parts’ — it is the SINGULAR OBJECT
by definition. SUBJECTS try to make
astrology/spiritualism/shareholder-value OBJECTIVE, but these are always
purely HISTORICAL, with no evaluation independent (or outside) of the
SUBJECTS who hold them. History is a MAJORITY SUBJECT changed by economics.
Karl M
In article <3871B694.A809B…@gecm.com>,
Brijesh <brijesh.mal…@gecm.com> wrote:
> To suggest that Mathematics fits the univesre is absurd!
> Do we suggest that the best way to undestand Shaspspear is by
anaylysing each
> individual letter of his writings – NO!
> Mathematics does describe our universe very well. I believe
there are at least two reasons for this.
1. In some cases the math was taylor made for the very purpose
of describing the universe. An example is calculus which Newton
built especially to do physics with.
2. Math is empirical. It is a science. It is about OUR universe.
If we lived in a different universe our math would be forced to
be different, logic would be different (like Quantum logic), even
probability theory would be different. All knowledge of every
kind is empirical, about OUR universe.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
In <8563mm$ls…@nnrp1.deja.com>, robertjones8…@my-deja.com writes:
> Mathematics does describe our universe very well. I believe
>there are at least two reasons for this.
>1. In some cases the math was taylor made for the very purpose
>of describing the universe. An example is calculus which Newton
>built especially to do physics with.
>2. Math is empirical. It is a science. It is about OUR universe.
>If we lived in a different universe our math would be forced to
>be different, logic would be different (like Quantum logic), even
>probability theory would be different. All knowledge of every
>kind is empirical, about OUR universe.
According to mathematician Gregory Chaitin,
math is quasi-empirical.
In a nutshell, Godel discovered incompleteness, Turing discovered
uncomputability, and I discovered randomness – that’s the amazing fact
that some mathematical statements are true for no reason, they’re true
by accident. There can be no "theory of everything," at least not in
mathematics.
- Gregory J. Chaitin, The Unknowable, p. v
I …concluded that mathematics is quasi-empirical.
- Gregory J. Chaitin, The Unknowable, p. vi
Scott
On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 18:16:28 -0800, "karl malbrain" <kar…@acm.org>
wrote:
>and Mr. Chaitin has never gotten away with his SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE nonsense
>in sci.logic. Mathematics is the discipline for emperical science,
>accidents are the SUBJECTIVE inverse of discipline. Karl M
Karl, with all due respect, what in the *heck* are you talking about
with all this capitalized "subjective/objective" rhetoric?
Vern
Christian Stapfer <chstap…@bluewin.ch> wrote in message
news:8554v5$aai$1@bw107zhb.bluewin.ch…
>The problem is, rather,
> how and why these two entities fit so well (i.e. why
> mathematics seems so unreasonably efficient as regards
> our understanding of this Universe).
It took thousands of years to figure out the current system.
If it wasn’t relatively efficient, we wouldn’t have put so much effort into
it.
We still can’t answer simple questions like are there an infinite number of
prime pairs.
Nature already figured out that counting is a survival trait.
That’s why monkeys and birds can do it.
We are hardwired to count just like most animals.
Russell
-2 many 2 count
<ve…@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:3876cbbf.1379220@news.primenet.com…
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 18:16:28 -0800, "karl malbrain" <kar…@acm.org>
> wrote:
> >> In a nutshell, Godel discovered incompleteness, Turing discovered
> >> uncomputability, and I discovered randomness – that’s the amazing fact
> >>that some mathematical statements are true for no reason, they’re true
> >>by accident. There can be no "theory of everything," at least not in
> >>mathematics….
> >and Mr. Chaitin has never gotten away with his SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE
nonsense
> >in sci.logic. Mathematics is the discipline for emperical science,
> >accidents are the SUBJECTIVE inverse of discipline. Karl M
> Karl, with all due respect, what in the *heck* are you talking about
> with all this capitalized "subjective/objective" rhetoric?
The CAPITALIZATIONS are NOMINATIVES. What do YOU think the difference
between `true by accident’ and discipline is? Karl M
> <ve…@primenet.com> wrote in message
> > Karl, with all due respect, what in the *heck* are you talking about
> > with all this capitalized "subjective/objective" rhetoric?
Nobody knows. It is probably all very clever but lacks something in
presentation.
karl malbrain replied:
> The CAPITALIZATIONS are NOMINATIVES. What do YOU think the difference
> between `true by accident’ and discipline is? Karl M
Linguistic nominatives? I beg to differ. In the following:
> > >and Mr. Chaitin has never gotten away with his SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE
The nominative is surely "Mr Chaitin", and "SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE" looks
like a genitive to me. And why capitalise a nominative anyway?
Regards,
Stephen.
Russell Easterly (logic…@wolfenet.com) wrote:
: Nature already figured out that counting is a survival trait.
: That’s why monkeys and birds can do it.
: We are hardwired to count just like most animals.
Certainly humans count.
It may be however that Bonobo chimps (et alia) do not.
That is to say, perhaps all creatures with a certain amount of perceptual
apparatus and short-term memory can ‘chunk’ groupings and compare them up
to about (the magic number) seven. >7 starts to go fuzzy, doesn’t it?
Isn’t that one of the current arguments for being careful about this stuff?
(Actually I’m sympathetic to chimps and dolphins being able to count in
the proper sense, with due regard for learned orderings of Arabic numerals,
but it may be difficult to know where to draw the line twixt counting and
chunking.)
Russell Easterly <logic…@wolfenet.com> wrote:
> Nature already figured out that counting is a survival trait.
Luckily it is – or, rather, has been: until now. I am not so sure, though,
that "bean counting" will finally help us survive another thousand years:
the general direction free market economy is taking makes me nervous – to
put it mildly.
But more seriously: Instead of wondering about whether that mysterious
efficiency comes from the relationship between mathematics and the universe,
one may be tempted to suggest that mathematics is more in the structure of
our brains. What cannot be reduced to relatively compact symbolic
representation in our brains will largely elude us.
Christian Stapfer
Christian Stapfer <chstap…@bluewin.ch> wrote in message
news:8554v5$aai$1@bw107zhb.bluewin.ch…
> "Sir Knowitall" <fell_joinedby…@one.net.au> wrote:
> > Mathematics is (part) of this Universe.
> Come on now, you must be kidding: There are plenty of things
> that are "(part) of this Universe" that do not fit it particularly well
> (astrology, spiritualism, shareholder-value ideology and
> economics in general, come to mind immediately).
<snip>
My alias does not make me immune to occassionally be stricken by
"Blubber-mouth’s disease".
All the same — getting closer to what I (might have) meant:
Some forms of abstract mathematics exist — or at least existed in days
past — whilst not (yet) having been found a physical or biological
applicability or relevance.
All the while, peer-reviewes of such mathematical thinking did quasi
scientifically test for **consistency of cognitive workability** — thereby
also eliminating pseudo-mathematical or any other mental noise generated by
"crackpot brains".
Therefore, the by Universal laws underpinned organization of (at least some)
human brains (and their "owners’" tendency to behave not just, although here
*specifically*, in ways relevant to the workability of mathematics) goes
partly towards explaining what I (diffusely might have) meant by my sloppy
comment.
Peter F.
P.S. (This P.S. is inserted on ‘behalf’ of my own "EAIMC Internetional Ptd
Lty";)
Apropos "pseudo-mathematical *or any other* "mental noise" generated by
"crackpot brains"":
Symptoms of such "cracks" usually tend to be caused by an environmentally
caused, insidiously accumulated, factor that I have re-labelled CURSES. The
factor normally tends to be wholly or partially ignored and left-out from
peoples equations (evaluations and theories) of what makes us behave the
ways we are —- in regard to which you may visit
http://web.one.net.au/~fellin/main.htm and be confronted with a *zoomable
*Umbrella-explanation* that you for reasons of our species’s evolution is
most likely NOT TO UNDERSTAND.
*That* you’ll most likely remain non-plussed by this my formulated (but
still not easily spoken about) "position of understanding" —- *even
though* I have used inocculatory injections of jocularity *as a buffer*
against the explanation’s inevitably ‘preconsciously perceived’
onerousness —– is because part of what is being described is a readily
subconsciously associated ‘natural stench’ (most figuratively put); The
"stench" (you’ll be able to spot what I am loosely and "light-makingly"
alluding to if you visit my web-document) will quite normally and entirely
automatically prompt us to preemptively "put off" observing that this is an
encompassingly philosophical thesis’s with an *otherwise* obviously
objective potency and relevance to almost all human ‘affairs’.