Jump to content

Can (New) Physics Exist Without Mathematics?


Recommended Posts

I have watched a few of his videos, I enjoy the way he thinks upon problems, And how he is open to new ways of thought.

 

Richard Feynman talks on Mathematicians v Physicists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw

 

Knowing v understanding,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

Edited by sunshaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our science and our language preclude the development of theory outside of math. This doesn't mean observation in support of theory can't be made without math or that hypohesis requires math but the complexity of current science is too great for any simple non-mathematical theory to exist. Modern scientific metaphysics rests on experiment and modern language can be deconstructed to mean almost anything. Scientific language must be precise and not open to ambiguity.

 

It is possible to invent other sciences that are logic based rather than math based. These other sciences could proceed with no math. The human brain isn't capable of the language required but I believe computers could do it. Indeed, it appears animals and early man used just such science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Examples please?

 

If words are adequately defined and are consistent with reality (nature) then science can be carried on through observation and without experiment. I believe this is how animals invent things and how humans operated until 4000 years ago. It can't be done with modern language outside of the individual because results can't be communicated such that progress will occur. Progress is the result of the compounding of knowledge and learning of many individuals over many generations.

 

Today we must use scientific (experimental) terminology for such communication and math is the quantified logic which accompanies it. This is the same effect in philosophy; that little progress is made because of the difficulty of building on the thinking of earlier research. This impacts applied science and all areas of human activity and gives us a warped picture of science and its meaning to individuals.

 

I have no idea how many types of science exist and was rather surprised to find a second one but a little bird told me they are probably all based on observation. Logic must surely underlie all of them but it doesn't have to be the type of math we started with nor any of the maths that exist today. Understanding of reality is not dependent on experiment. A rabbit doesn't need to get caught by a fox to know it needs to get away the next time. Reality exists and we are mere play actors within it. We can write our own script or use one provided but we are still beholden to the foxes of the world. If the script is "wrong" there may be an unhappy ending.

There may be an entirely unscripted ending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If words are adequately defined and are consistent with reality (nature) then science can be carried on through observation and without experiment.

 

 

this doesn't make sense. you have to devise a way in which to observe the conclusions of theory (or not) from reality, which is an experiment.

 

 

 

Understanding of reality is not dependent on experiment.

 

how does one understand reality without looking at it in a given context?

Edited by andrewcellini
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that physics already exist without Mathematics, the breadth of our physics mathematically are local, that's to say that they are applicable to this state of being (Nature). however the girth of the universe defies our math on every level, the processes' that brings particular matter or forces to reality have no equation that we can confidentially claim to be in the realm of our math.

 

Take the pressure of the upper atmospheres surrounding earth, How does or does it effect gravity, or is it a aspect of gravity, in any circumstance, what's the math on that?. If Math is so integral to physics, what are it's universal constant? What is the exact thermal output of the Sun? Cold water to the touch is equal to cold water to the gage.

 

Physics at best may be a distance cousin of Math, useful on this playing field, but wholly inaccurate in the wider, bigger, 10X more complicated arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that physics already exist without Mathematics

 

At some long ago forgotten time, that was surely repeated many times but never remembered or recorded, a sunrise was observed. Was that the physics you refer to?

 

Or was it when a stone was placed to mark the point where the observer would stand and another where the Sun had risen. Was that then the act of physics?

 

Or was it when they observed that the stones they had placed to mark the consecutive points of sunrise were evenly spaced, and by that observation - measured?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

this doesn't make sense. you have to devise a way in which to observe the conclusions of theory (or not) from reality, which is an experiment.

 

 

"Experiment" is the isolation of variables. It is a sort of staging of the way nature works. This concept would be abhorant to an observation based science. Animals and ancient man seek the ways in which all of nature rhymed with itself. Things that didn't fit ancient science were simply held aside until their pattern was deduced and then confirmed through observation.

 

In a sense you could say that each species has its own science. But be this as it may there are other means to acquire and organize knowledge than experimental science.

 

how does one understand reality without looking at it in a given context?

 

 

"Context" to us is language, or perhaps more accurately, knowledge. Without this knowledge reality still exists. And consciousness still exists. We have chosen to understand reality through modern language and beliefs. We have invented experimental science to gain knowledge about nature and we quantify logic to manipulate and understand these laws. We believe we exist because we think, but a rabbit still runs from the fox.

 

 

 

Or was it when they observed that the stones they had placed to mark the consecutive points of sunrise were evenly spaced, and by that observation - measured?

 

Indeed!

 

And when they saw the same sunspots the next morning they would postulate that it was the same sun from the previous day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Experiment" is the isolation of variables. It is a sort of staging of the way nature works. This concept would be abhorant to an observation based science. Animals and ancient man seek the ways in which all of nature rhymed with itself. Things that didn't fit ancient science were simply held aside until their pattern was deduced and then confirmed through observation.

how does one stage the way nature works? it always is doing what it does as you say even when we're not there, which makes no difference to experiment because it is performed in this reality. the only way to get results that you want to observe is to conceive of a way to and cause it to happen. if you can't then your theory is wrong. this is the core of science pretty much.

Edited by andrewcellini
Link to comment
Share on other sites

how does one stage the way nature works?

 

We can't really stage it in the way to which I'm referring. Building a dam and placing turbines in the way of a river could be thoughtof as such but it's not the point. Modern science employs observation and experiment and it matters little if the scientist is observing an experiment or something "natural". Experiments simply lead more directly to theory.

 

But this isn't the way ancient science worked. If results are based on logic then it simply follows that anything you do to affect observation is "cheating" and will affect outcomes, conclusions, and theory. I'm sure they did actually plan many observations and along various parameters. For instance if you want to observe bats you don't go looking for them at noon. If you want to see tides then you attend to the moon.

 

"Experiment" is certainly a staging of nature since all variables have to be excluded or accounted for. You need to isolate the thing you want to see. It's done in a lab where everything can be controlled.

 

it always is doing what it does as you say even when we're not there, which makes no difference to experiment because it is performed in this reality.

 

 

Certainly experiment occurs in the real world but usually even the simplest experiments don't occur naturally. They require someone to invent them and set them up.

 

the only way to get results that you want to observe is to conceive of a way to and cause it to happen. if you can't then your theory is wrong. this is the core of science pretty much.

 

 

Yes. This is modern human science (observation > experiment). This science is unique.

 

Other science is observation > logic. Most of what we consider "experiment" is illegitimate to this process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.