Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ?

[swansont]

Metaphysics is the tool we use to operate science.

It is? Can you explain how this happens?

Observation suggests that we are approaching the end of our ability to devise experiments to test theory.

What observation would that be? That we're probably doing more experimentation now than we've ever done?

The tool has been used nearly to its limit yet we know only the tiniest percentage of nature's laws.

How do you determine the fraction of laws that we know?

[cladking]

It is? Can you explain how this happens?

 

There is no meaning to science without its definitions and the means to carry it out. Without the logic of math it is reduced to little more than semantics and observational truth. Observation> hypothesis> experiment> conclusion and previous conclusion is metaphysics and the basis of modern science. But there are other metaphysics that can be employed such as observation> logic> observation> conclusion plus previous conclusion. There may be an endless array of possible metaphysics to learn about nature though, I'd guess, they are all founded essentially on logic and observation. It is probably possible to blend these techniques in both theory and the real world in order to get past experiment at least in the short term.

[swansont]

There is no meaning to science without its definitions and the means to carry it out. Without the logic of math it is reduced to little more than semantics and observational truth. Observation> hypothesis> experiment> conclusion and previous conclusion is metaphysics and the basis of modern science. But there are other metaphysics that can be employed such as observation> logic> observation> conclusion plus previous conclusion. There may be an endless array of possible metaphysics to learn about nature though, I'd guess, they are all founded essentially on logic and observation. It is probably possible to blend these techniques in both theory and the real world in order to get past experiment at least in the short term.

 

That's not metaphysics as I understand it. Metaphysics deals with the "true" nature of reality and other non-empirical efforts. Science is empirical.

[cladking]

What observation would that be? That we're probably doing more experimentation now than we've ever done?

 

How do you determine the fraction of laws that we know?

 

To my knowledge it's much more a matter of 'measurement" going on now days than experimentation. It seems we've been on the threshhold of a unified field theory for a century yet we know little more about gravity than the great pyramid builders. We've learned its speed and can closely measure its force and estimate its force on far away objects but we don't really know why two objects attract.

 

In the real world it's rarely possible to predict events with any degree of certainty. The smaller the scale or greater the duuration the poorer are our predictions. We don't understand events and phenomena in the real world because we can't isolate them as we do in the lab. It looks to most of us that such predictions are easy because what we see are human concerns and man-made objects which are a manifestation of lab conditions. Still no two experts can agree on a prediction before or after the fact. People climb out of cars smashed to a tiny size and others are killed in fender benders. Weather predictions a few days out are rarely accurate. Brain surgeons try one medication after another searching for one that works.

 

Modern science has provided tremendous wealth and technology but it has appeared to be slowing in terms of theory and experiment design for a quarter century. No doubt it can continue to provide more technology and materials just based on things already learned and outgrowths of those new processes, but theoretical science itself may be approaching a standstill.

[swansont]

To my knowledge it's much more a matter of 'measurement" going on now days than experimentation.

You're going to have to explain that one.

In the real world it's rarely possible to predict events with any degree of certainty.

Because of the failure of theory or the inability to determine boundary conditions? Auto accidents and the weather are examples of the latter, not the former.

[cladking]

That's not metaphysics as I understand it. Metaphysics deals with the "true" nature of reality and other non-empirical efforts. Science is empirical.

 

It's pretty pathetic metaphysics but it is metaphysics. At least the definition I'm using which is "the system of principles underlying the study of a subject". It's impossible to be strictly "empirical" and it may be undesirable to try. We attempt to exclude everything but observation and experience but the fact is that without definitions, axioms, and terms to understand convey the results they will have no meaning. We tend to brush off previous experimental results because we believe we "know" and understand the implications of those results and this is where we get in the most trouble. Experimental results are dependent on the lab and apply only to the lab. We extrapolate them to the concrete world at our own risk. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a problem and obviously 600 years of scientific advancement says it's not a particular problem. However, it is a monster of a problem when dealing with those who aren't familiar with science and believing results are "empirical" simply because we measure properly and compute properly is a problem. The major problem isn't the rampant pseudo-science nor is it even the extreme danger presented from scientists who can put us at risk by their "experiments", but simply the fact that advancement is going to slow if experimental science really is losing its ability to gain new knowledge.

 

The types of problems facing us in the future may be much less solvable using experimental science than the problems of the past.

[cladking]

 

You're going to have to explain that one.

 

Because of the failure of theory or the inability to determine boundary conditions? Auto accidents and the weather are examples of the latter, not the former.

 

We're doing remarkable things with mapping the genomes and the like and inventing new technology but these have nothing to do with cutting edge experimentation.

 

There are many reasons we can't predict things and certainly in the real world a major factor is the inability to determine boundary conditions. Certainly, too, most observations of new phenomena are highly consistent with established theory but this isn't quite the same thing as prediction. True "prediction" must occur before the fact. If we really understood brain surgery we wouldn't have to try various medications or a single medication would be effective for allwith the same condition. Drugs would be taylor made for conditions rather finding their effects "experimentally". Electronics would be produced without the need of variable resistors. Cars wouldn't malfunction until the warranty was expired (they do well here). There wouldn't be traffic jams. We wouldn't have an economy based on waste and wealth derived from destruction of productive enterprises.

 

We are acting on psuedo-science while real science is grinding slowly to a halt which is probably caused much more by the failure of the metaphysics to deal with the natural increase in the complexity of our understanding even more than it is the ascendency of superstition to decision making. This superstition is largely a function of a widespread belief that in aggregate we know just about everything. We each tend to trust specialists and experts in other fields to actually have real knowledge based on real science but instead what we get "fascilitators" who use oujia boards to communicate with those who can't communicate at all and archaeological fields founded on ridiculous assumptions.

 

There's an attitude that since we know a million times as much as the great pyramid builders then we must know pretty close to everything when in actuality we know a tiny fraction of a percent about anything.

 

Quite recently the very first piece of paper from the great pyramid building age was found. The only thing established by it so far was already known (tura limestone was imported to Giza) but this is the "cultural context" which actually underlies this "science". To a very real extent these considerations pervade most branches of science while specialists are so near sighted few can see anything but the smallest of pictures. They see only the mite on the back legs of a bark beetle on a spruce tree in a forest. We don't really understand the mite if we can't see the forest and certainly can't make realistic predictions without seeing the trees.

 

I'm not condemning science or scientists but will say we've lost track of science and it's becoming the flavor of the day to the majority of people.

 

Look up Long Term Capital Management to see where someone deluded themselves into believing markets are beholden to math and how their recklessness nearly destroyed us.

 

We never seem to learn anything from these errors.

[Ringer]

The major problem isn't the rampant pseudo-science nor is it even the extreme danger presented from scientists who can put us at risk by their "experiments", but simply the fact that advancement is going to slow if experimental science really is losing its ability to gain new knowledge.

If you look up publication rates in experimental journals I doubt your worry will have much substance.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Shouldn't that be ...New mathematical tools are found to PREDICT physics?

 

I really do think we are getting too hung up on this Prediction Thing If we are going looking for new Physics surely most of the things that have an obvious connection with other things have been mostly spotted. If we are looking for some new ideas, they may have obscure connections and again only probabilistic in links. I am saying lets run for a while with ideas, before we too soon BLAST the infant idea out of the water before they have learned to swim.

 

Edited April 24, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Post 1 said

"Recent comments by an Astronomy orientated Researcher Dr Paul J Abel (Patrick Moore Sky at Night Fame ) (see ajb blogg), has posed questions as to whether maths should be leading the resolution of the ( Quantum Gravity issue), which it is, in string theory and other maths orientated research., Yet ( he indicates ) what is really required is a New Einstein ! Observers, Thinkers , and Hypothesis, to lead the field and then the mathematicians can follow and tidy up the details. !"

I'm not sure what that means.

 

The answer to the question is that,mathematics alone cannot possibly know what is right, it can just rule out things which are impossible.

However there's a problem with the question in the title. It asks if it should be maths or a hypothesis.

But the hypothesis will be largely maths.

 

Yes but you are none the less supporting the idea that we must not leave the leadership or guiding impetus to Maths ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes but you are none the less supporting the idea that we must not leave the leadership or guiding impetus to Maths ?

 

Because maths tends to be closely linked with prediction and determinism , it could hold back , more probability based , emergent based theories/hypotheses .

[imatfaal]

Because maths tends to be closely linked with prediction and determinism , it could hold back , more probability based , emergent based theories/hypotheses .

But it was only when Cardano and others in Renaissance Italy started putting numbers onto ideas of chance that we were able to really talk about probability. Before the gamblers of Florence sat down and started to quantify likelihood and unlikelihood all we had was the binary statements - I believe it will happen / I believe it won't happen. Even with the quantification of probability the judgement of risk and rewards are still horrifically bad amongst the majority of the population (vegas/national lottery)- Words just do not cut it with probability; it is very unlikely that today's cricket match will be settled in a super-over (go Royals!), it is also very unlikely that my office syndicate will win the euromillions lottery, or that alien's will overtly seek contact with humanity. But try sticking number on those events (respectively - possible to estimate/easy/impossible) and suddenly one realises how paltry the verbal description is.

 

What I am getting at is - that it is words that hold things back (especially probabilities, risks, chance) and maths that allows them to flourish!

[swansont]

Because maths tends to be closely linked with prediction and determinism , it could hold back , more probability based , emergent based theories/hypotheses .

 

Probability is still math, and still allows for prediction.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Probability is still math, and still allows for prediction.

 

I think the perception, often put forward, particularly in Physics ,is that Maths is precise . A formula can be derived and used to make an exact result. Thus can be used to make exact predictions.

 

Probability is encompassed within maths , as statistics ,etc and might in the future encompass maths as yet unknown and unspecified, However its ability in this area does come up with unreliable prediction IF ACCURACY IS REQUIRED . Say Weather forecast., Yes but imprecise. Computer models yes. But Formula to predict NO.

 

So by all means call it New Maths, using Genetic Algorithms, or other convergent techniques, or probable based paradigms.

 

But I think this is pointing to the importance of OBSERVATION and HYPOTHESIS as being required to act as MAJOR DRIVERS in this Subject under discussion, namely

 

a medium for exploring the frontiers of Science.

 

Then using maths to assist , and come up with NEW MATHS to cope.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[kristalris]

Probability is still math, and still allows for prediction.

All verbal logic can be expressed via probabilistic reasoning based on Bayes. The need to do such is not required when the bottleneck is not the logic but the garbage or non garbage and the extreme broad scope of a problem to be tackled with to few data. A dictate of logic (i.e. thus mathematics as well) is that verbal logic providing testable hypothesis providing observations is the quickest and surest way forward. You can't keep on wanting to measure predictions on the nano-meter with a deviation in meters. Look at all the data and answer all questions and guess and test that guess and keep on doing that. It doesn't exclude other methods. The problem is that this method is excluded by current science without any rational bases whatsoever. Close is close enough to warrant testing. I.e. get on with it.

 

I.e. state a goal such as getting to a TOE within the decade and put a bag of money on it and get it organised, and accept a host of failed crazy idea's being tested.

[swansont]

I think the perception, often put forward, particularly in Physics ,is that Maths is precise . A formula can be derived and used to make an exact result. Thus can be used to make exact predictions.

 

Probability is encompassed within maths , as statistics ,etc and might in the future encompass maths as yet unknown and unspecified, However its ability in this area does come up with unreliable prediction IF ACCURACY IS REQUIRED . Say Weather forecast., Yes but imprecise. Computer models yes. But Formula to predict NO.

 

So by all means call it New Maths, using Genetic Algorithms, or other convergent techniques, or probable based paradigms.

 

But I think this is pointing to the importance of OBSERVATION and HYPOTHESIS as being required to act as MAJOR DRIVERS in this Subject under discussion, namely

 

a medium for exploring the frontiers of Science.

 

Then using maths to assist , and come up with NEW MATHS to cope.

 

I will point out for the, what, tenth? time, that you are creating a false dichotomy. This isn't an either/or situation, or even a major/minor situation. Whatever your mental picture is of how people do science, it's wrong.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

kristalis,

 

You have been warned on numerous ocassions that introducing your own pet hypotheses into threads where they do not belong (that is, any thread that isn't directly on the topic) will not be tolerated. This will be your last warning about the issue. Further infractions will result in a suspension.

[ajb]

Then using maths to assist , and come up with NEW MATHS to cope.

Mathematical physics is full of examples of this. In my own area of research the want to understand what physicists were doing with supersymmetry and the BV-BRST quantisation methods lead to the development of supermanifolds and graded manifolds, both of which are objects not completley understood at a fundamental level. Though more interesting to me than fundamental questions are the applications in physics and mathematics, which seem plentyful.

 

In fact, lots of new mathematical structures that have their roots in physics, or for sure found quick applications in physics, have gone on to become interesting structures in their own right and have many applications. A very short list may include calculus and differential equations, differential geometry, Poisson and symplectic geometry, operator algebras, the calculus of variations and so on.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mathematical physics is full of examples of this. In my own area of research the want to understand what physicists were doing with supersymmetry and the BV-BRST quantisation methods lead to the development of supermanifolds and graded manifolds, both of which are objects not completley understood at a fundamental level. Though more interesting to me than fundamental questions are the applications in physics and mathematics, which seem plentyful.

 

In fact, lots of new mathematical structures that have their roots in physics, or for sure found quick applications in physics, have gone on to become interesting structures in their own right and have many applications. A very short list may include calculus and differential equations, differential geometry, Poisson and symplectic geometry, operator algebras, the calculus of variations and so on.

 

calculus

 

The maths of change ......... fascinating ........

 

 

Pulls my brain apart but ............fascinating ................change and change upon change upon change

 

 

maybe you think of it in another way ? ajb

 

.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

maybe you think of it in another way ? ajb

Calculus, well when I have to usually in terms of limits, but also infinitesimals or even just rather more formally which is useful for polynomial algebras for example.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Calculus, well when I have to usually in terms of limits, but also infinitesimals or even just rather more formally which is useful for polynomial algebras for example.

Somewhere here in my house I have a copy of Mathmatica by Isaac Newton. I have had a quick look for it. I have the feeling it's propping up the bed.! I am saving it up for reading perhaps over a nuclear winter , or sometime.

[D H]

Mod edit: post and responses moved from discussion on centrifugal force that went on a tangent

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72515-coriolis-and-centrifugal-force-visualized-in-a-rotating-massloop/page-3#entry745809

——————————

 

No, Mike. Please don't go there. You will not find the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything in pseudoscience. All you will find is charlatan nonsense.

 

If you want to understand physics you need to understand those "math descriptors". If you don't want to learn those, then all we can offer ultimately is "because I said so". In fact, even if you learn the very hairiest of those "math descriptors", there's still going to be a "because we said so" brick wall that you hit. Science does not answer "why" questions. That's what charlatans and crackpots pretend to do. It's so satisfying to have those ultimate answers. Unfortunately, those ultimate answers are inevitably wrong. They explain nothing.

Edited May 27, 2013 by swansont
add modnote

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

No, Mike. Please don't go there. You will not find the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything in pseudoscience. All you will find is charlatan nonsense.

 

If you want to understand physics you need to understand those "math descriptors". If you don't want to learn those, then all we can offer ultimately is "because I said so". In fact, even if you learn the very hairiest of those "math descriptors", there's still going to be a "because we said so" brick wall that you hit. Science does not answer "why" questions. That's what charlatans and crackpots pretend to do. It's so satisfying to have those ultimate answers. Unfortunately, those ultimate answers are inevitably wrong. They explain nothing.

 

What you appear to be saying is :-

 

MATHS is BEDROCK or if not

 

There is no way to get at BEDROCK .

 

 

Why must there be no way to the ultimate answers of Physics ? or The Universe ? and Everything?

 

You are saying to me

 

 

Mike " Don't go over to the Dark Side " ref Luke Skywalker

Edited May 26, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[D H]

What you appear to be saying is :-

 

MATHS is BEDROCK or if not

 

There is no way to get at BEDROCK .

 

Both, actually.

 

Math is the bedrock of many of the sciences, and in physics, ALL CAPS is the way to say this. If you aren't using math you aren't doing physics. You're at best explaining physics to your grandma by means of (inevitably poor) analogies.

 

As far as not getting to the bedrock, science doesn't do that. It at best tries to create an ever improving model of what can be observed. Science provides models of behaviors, and it is inherently limited by what can be observed. If you want bedrock, you want religion. That religious bedrock might not be right (and oftentimes it is at odds with observable reality), but it is comforting.

 

That's part of the appeal of pseudoscience. Just like religion, pseodoscience purportedly offers simple explanations that claim to be deeper than those offered by the sciences. That it is counterfactual is irrelevant. Don't be lulled by pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo such as that put forth by Robin Pike.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Both, actually.

 

Math is the bedrock of many of the sciences, and in physics, ALL CAPS is the way to say this. If you aren't using math you aren't doing physics. You're at best explaining physics to your grandma by means of (inevitably poor) analogies.

 

As far as not getting to the bedrock, science doesn't do that. It at best tries to create an ever improving model of what can be observed. Science provides models of behaviors, and it is inherently limited by what can be observed. If you want bedrock, you want religion. That religious bedrock might not be right (and oftentimes it is at odds with observable reality), but it is comforting.

 

That's part of the appeal of pseudoscience. Just like religion, pseodoscience purportedly offers simple explanations that claim to be deeper than those offered by the sciences. That it is counterfactual is irrelevant. Don't be lulled by pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo such as that put forth by Robin Pike.

 

You could start a RIOT by what you have said here. ! All be it, that it is the statement I expected .

 

Its putting all your eggs in one basket.:-

 

IF you are wrong on the point that science MUST emanate out of maths.

 

IF and only IF some future ,( particular aspect of science,) progress in understanding HAS TO come from a different route, say :- Observation or otherwise, followed by conceptual modeling , followed by experiment or further observations. Then one could restrict progress in understanding if one was to doggedly stick to maths and maths alone.

 

Prof. Lee Smolin of Perimeter Institute has just released his latest book TIME REBORN . Not one Maths formula . True it is the result of many scientists and many years work, but none-the-less surely this demonstrates NEW SCIENCE needs NEW METHODS. No? Maybe subjects like TIME need a conceptual change not more maths.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos