The Language of Physics.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Write4U, Aug 14, 2020.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,159
    Quite.

    Physics is actually totally incapable of describing a tree. In fact, physics can't even give an exact mathematical description of an atom with more than 2 electrons.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,632
    That's why there is the physics joke where you draw a small circle on top of a large circle and say "Assume this is a cow". It's both funny and it can be useful in physics (as in Lawrence Krauss's explanation of why land animals don't grow larger than a rhino or some such example). Basically you can't support the head after a certain point (one dimension goes up by the square while the other is goes up by the cube).

    Most of physics is greatly simplified as you mention with the example of the elements.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,852
    Yes, the fractal function is the most efficient growth pattern for photosynthesis.
    The Fibonacci sequence (named after the discoverer) is the most efficient vertical growth pattern providing optimum balanced weight distribution of the branches.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,852
    Yes, the language of Universal Logical processes. The essence of a dynamical self-ordering spacetime.

    Causal Dynamical Triangulation
    (a fractal theory".

    Quantum Gravity from Causal Dynamical Triangulations: A Review, R. Loll
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.08669

    Quantum gravity on a laptop: 1 + 1 Dimensional Causal Dynamical Triangulation simulation

    Causal Dynamical Triangulation [4] is a conservative approach to quantum gravity that constructs spacetime from triangular-like building blocks by gluing their time-like edges in the same direction. The microscopic causality inherent in the resulting spacetime foliation ensures macroscopic space and time as we know it. Despite the discrete foundation, CDT does not necessarily imply that spacetime itself is discrete. It merely grows a combinatorial spacetime from the building blocks according to a propagator fashioned from a sum-over-histories superposition. Dynamically generating a classical universe from quantum fluctuations is an outstanding accomplishment of this approach.

    Causal Dynamical Triangulation
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

    Is this not the mathematical function before any physical spacetime even existed?
    It describes the mathematical essence of the unfolding spacetime geometry itself .
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,852
    Yes, the language of Universal Logical processes. The essence of a dynamical self-ordering spacetime.

    Causal Dynamical Triangulation
    (a fractal theory").

    Quantum Gravity from Causal Dynamical Triangulations: A Review, R. Loll
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.08669

    Diffeomorphism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffeomorphism#

    Quantum gravity on a laptop: 1 + 1 Dimensional Causal Dynamical Triangulation simulation
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379712000319
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,159
    This is why, by turns, it amuses and annoys me that physics and maths are treated with such reverence. It's as if everyone is as bigoted as Rutherford, who claimed - slightly tongue in cheek no doubt - that in science there was "only physics - and stamp collecting". Most of science does NOT use maths as its primary language, because it is perfectly useless for describing the complex systems we see everywhere in nature.

    Even in physics, maths can only be brought to bear AFTER the characteristics of systems that we want to quantify have been defined. And those definitions, and the concepts behind them, have to be expressed in words. Not maths.
     
    Seattle likes this.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,852
    Perhaps to humans.
    The Universe itself has no need for any human understanding or interpretation. And it would certainly be exactly the same regardless of any human observation. It's underlying Logic is not descriptive at all, it's dynamically functional.
     
  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,632
    There is no underlying "logic".
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,852
    Can you clarify that statement?

    This is how I understand Logic.

    Nature is logical, because logic is natural
    First Online: 08 March 2012
    Part of the Springer Praxis Books book series (PRAXIS)

    Summary
     
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,632
    Logic requires thinking. Nature isn't a sentient being.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,222
    logic

    (uncountable) A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is the basis of many principles including the scientific method.
    (philosophy, logic) The study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. ▼ show
    (uncountable, mathematics) The mathematical study of relationships between rigorously defined concepts and of mathematical proof of statements.
    (countable, mathematics) A formal or informal language together with a deductive system or a model-theoretic semantics.
    (uncountable) Any system of thought, whether rigorous and productive or not, especially one associated with a particular person.
    It's hard to work out his system of logic.
    (uncountable) The part of a system (usually electronic) that performs the boolean logic operations, short for logic gates or logic circuit.
    Fred is designing the logic for the new controller.

    English Dictionary offline app

    NOTE
    • A method of human thought
    • Note the Universe does not have method, is not human, does not have thought
    • that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner
    • Note covered in above
    • about how a problem can be solved
    • Note the Universe does not solve problems

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    exchemist likes this.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,852
    Logic is:
    Yes, no argument there. Humans require thinking about logic.
    Nature doesn't, it operates in a logical way without neccessity for thought.

    Why do you persist in subjective interpretation of objective natural logical processes? Humans have absolutely no influence on universal logical operators and operants.

    Human words and symbols have no effect on universal functions, they describe TO OURSELVES, the extant natural order and natural logical processes as far as we can observe and understand them. Nature does not need understanding, we do!

    You are still talking about human interpretation of natural processes. But the human concept of Logic rests on observed natural processes.

    Take humans out of the equation and NOTHING changes in nature. All the observed regularities will remain regardless of human or an ant's cognitive abilities.

    Universal quantification
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification

    Example; A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO HILBERT SPACE AND QUANTUM LOGIC, JOEL KLIPFEL
    “We must know−we will know!” -David Hilbert [5]
    https://www.whitman.edu/documents/Academics/Mathematics/klipfel.pdf
     
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,222
    Did you miss this part of the definition of logic?
    Another aspect about a non thinking non sentinent Universe of stuff

    It does not have problems to solve

    it operates in a logical way without neccessity for thought

    No no no a gazillion times no

    The Universe is a collection of PHYSICAL stuff

    Each post where you claim, even if a negative claim (ie it operates in a logical way without neccessity for thought) you have anthropomorphised the Universe

    it operates in a logical way without neccessity for thought

    leaves your statement open to the retort "Yes BUT if it DID think about it"

    More to come

    Breakfast in bed moment

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,852
    Still subjective.
    Try a dispassionate objective perspective.

    Logical truths
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

    Universal algebraic processing functions are a logical truths. They are both necessary and sufficient.

    Necessity and sufficiency
    This article is about the formal terminology in logic.
    For causal meanings of the terms, see Causality
    .
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency#
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,852
    That is not THE definition of logic.

    logic
    https://www.yourdictionary.com/logic#

    Truth function
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_function

    Modal logic
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2020
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,222

    Translation
    • we made observations - human stuff used some stuff to put down some stuff on other stuff in the form of squiggles
    • made some calculations - used the stuff put down on other stuff to think
    • checked calculations for correctness
    • calculations showed indeed physical stuff interacted with other physical stuff in a predictable manner
    NOTE

    Universe stuff did not make any calculations or thinking. Both those activities were undertaken by human stuff

    Move on, no anthropomorphism going on here, move along

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2020
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,852
    A Logical system does not need to think. The system is intrinsically Logical, regardless what human think about it.
    I agree, the logical universe does not think. A mathematical universe does not need to think, it is logical in essence.
    No "thinking", no anthropomorphology.

    And therein lies the crux of the matter........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,222
    And therein lies physics

    I'm out (again)

    Book is open for how long

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,845
    The "Fibonacci sequence" (and its many close relatives) describes the product of biological (and chemical, etc) growth mechanisms that have evolved under certain constraints. These constraints are common, Darwinian evolution is ubiquitous, and so that description is good for a great many instances of biological growth.

    Plants and the like of course do not do math or employ mathematical functions in their control mechanisms, so the mathematical description is always approximate.
    Also, since many other mathematical entities produce Fibonacci-type numbers and sequences or limits or terms describing such biological growth, the Fibonacci sequence description is not fundamental or necessary but optional - often (as in the convergent shapes of vertebrate skulls, which do not present as spirals or grow indefinitely) the closed form, the eigenvalue decomposition of the difference equation matrix, the continued fraction, the generating function, or simply the Golden Ratio, is more convenient
    (and fully as accurate or informative - the insight that the irrationality of the eigenvalues lies behind efficient packing of florets and distribution of mutually competitive photosynthetic or other nutrient harvesting structures is much more easily obtained from the difference equation matrix or the closed form than from the sequence of integers, for example).
     
    Write4U likes this.
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,852
    I disagree, the plants do the math and employ mathematical growth functions.
    Of course they don't know they do that. The mathematical growth instructions eventually become hardwired in the DNA, by natural selection.
     

Share This Page