Theory of Everything

[Polymath257]

I don’t think you understand the argument, this short articles summarizes the “problem of math”….. the best solution to that problem is theism (I would suggest) if you have a better solution feel free to share it
What Is Math? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

And the point is that the orbits of planets are NOT ellipses. They are *approximated* by ellipses, but there are modifications because there is more than one gravitating center.

Exponential decay is time invariant, so given a time axis, it is the simplest possibility.

Mathematics is *useful* because *we* designed it to be useful. Just like the English language is useful because *we* adjusted it to be so.

The article you give talked about Platonism in mathematics. But I am not a Platonist. In fact, I consider Platonism to be a very basic philosophical mistake.

When it comes to math, I am a *formalist*. Meaning *we* choose our assumptions and rules of inference and then discover the consequences of those assumptions.

It's like the game of chess. We choose the way the pieces move and the starting position. But we can still talk about 'mate in 3 moves'.

Math is ultimately the study of formal axiomatic systems.

From *your* article:

"In fact, says Rovelli, Wigner’s claim that mathematics is spectacularly useful for doing science doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. He argues that many discoveries made by mathematicians are of hardly any relevance to scientists. “There is a huge amount of mathematics which is extremely beautiful to mathematicians, but completely useless for science,” he says. “And there are a lot of scientific problems—like turbulence, for example—that everyone would like to find some useful mathematics for, but we haven’t found it.”

 

[leroy]

When it comes to math, I am a *formalist*. Meaning *we* choose our assumptions and rules of inference and then discover the consequences of those assumptions.

The problem is that you choose your assumptions before making the discoveries, so why future discoveries matched those assumptions.

It's like the game of chess. We choose the way the pieces move and the starting position. But we can still talk about 'mate in 3 moves'.

Well imagine that we find “new games” in the future that have the same rules that chess has….. the pieces move following the same pattern that chess pieces do? Wouldn’t this coincidence indicate that chess and the other games where designed?

From *your* article:

"In fact, says Rovelli, Wigner’s claim that mathematics is spectacularly useful for doing science doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. He argues that many discoveries made by mathematicians are of hardly any relevance to scientists. “There is a huge amount of mathematics which is extremely beautiful to mathematicians, but completely useless for science,” he says. “And there are a lot of scientific problems—like turbulence, for example—that everyone would like to find some useful mathematics for, but we haven’t found it.”

Even if not perfect, it is still hard to explain why is math so usefull.

 

[Polymath257]

The problem is that you choose your assumptions before making the discoveries, so why future discoveries matched those assumptions.

Not true. We chose our original assumptions in math because we wanted to count cows and measure area.

The math was chosen to work with those. When calculus was invented, it was chosen to work with Newton's laws. Again, it was descriptive of the laws that newton proposed.

But the vast majority of math has little or no value in the sciences. Outside of 'applied math', which is, again, devoted to choosing assumptions to help us understand things, math typically has little outside application.

Well imagine that we find “new games” in the future that have the same rules that chess has….. the pieces move following the same pattern that chess pieces do? Wouldn’t this coincidence indicate that chess and the other games where designed?

The obvious difference is that the basic assumptions in math are very *simple* and so are the easiest ones to use for first approximations.

For example, the first model for planetary motion used circles. Those didn't fit too well, and Kepler found that certain ellipses fit better. But those don't work in detail, and Newton's laws worked better for 'corrections'. Then Einstein's laws provided a better approximation.

What is happening is that the math used is chosen to help us explain our observations. When the level of approximation changes, we change the math used for the description. The math in Einstein's theory is very, very different than that is Newton's, which is different than that in Ptolemy's.

Even if not perfect, it is still hard to explain why is math so usefull.

No more than it is to explain why English is so useful. Both were *formulated* by us to help us understand the world. So it should be no surprise when parts of it are useful in exactly that way.

Mathematicians look at *patterns* in a very abstract setting. it shouldn't be surprising when, after we look at a host of possible patterns, a *few* of them apply to patterns we find in the real world.

And I'm going to circle back to your 'prediction' that the fundamental constants should be 'nice'. In actuality, they tend to be anything *but* nice. Why that particular ratio between the mass of an electron and that of a muon? or the value of the fine structure constant? or the specific value of the magnetic moment anomaly? NONE of those is a 'nice' constant like 2 or even pi or e.

 

[paarsurrey]

Theory of Everything

Is it an attempe to make science from a human tool to something greater than that, please?

Regards

 

[leroy]

And I'm going to circle back to your 'prediction' that the fundamental constants should be 'nice'. In actuality, they tend to be anything *but* nice. Why that particular ratio between the mass of an electron and that of a muon? or the value of the fine structure constant? or the specific value of the magnetic moment anomaly? NONE of those is a 'nice' constant like 2 or even pi or e.

I didn’t say that the fundamental constants are “nice” The claim is that the universe is understandable and describable by simple and elegant mathematical equations.
(this argumetn has nothign to do with the constants)

Not true. We chose our original assumptions in math because we wanted to count cows and measure area.

The math was chosen to work with those. When calculus was invented, it was chosen to work with Newton's laws. Again, it was descriptive of the laws that newton proposed.

The issue is that often , we use math to describe stuff that goes beyond the original purpose of that particular math………


The issue is that often , we use math to describe stuff that goes beyond the original purpose of that particular math……… often the math and the physics are developed independently and miraculously then match up.

For example, the first model for planetary motion used circles. Those didn't fit too well, and Kepler found that certain ellipses fit better. But those don't work in detail, and Newton's laws worked better for 'corrections'. Then Einstein's laws provided a better approximation.

What is happening is that the math used is chosen to help us explain our observations

yes but the accuracy of math go beyond the observations that where possible to make at the time where the math was developed.

for example Newton, given the restrictions of his day, could only verify the results with an accuracy of 4%, the law was later proved to be accurate to within less than a ten thousandth of one percent


...
but anyway, GIVEN NATURALISM, WHY WOULD WE EXPECT TO HAVE A THEORY OF EVERYTHING? WHY WOULDN’T YOU BE SURPRISED?




.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All I am saying is that nice and round numbers are hard to explain with naturalism / and not so hard to explain with theism.

I don't see how that is true.

Under this basis I would predict that the “theory of everything” would be a nice and simple equation. … a naturalist has no basis for making such a prediction.

You have no such basis either. Bare claims aren't such a basis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

mathematical concepts have applicability far beyond the context in which they were originally developed.

How do you explain that?

In the same way that that also applies to spoken language.

why does “ancient -man-made math” explain the wonders of the universe?

It doesn't.

Throughout history, humans had to develop new math to account for new phenomena.
It's not like "ancient man" invented math and that that math was good enough for the millenia to come...........

When someone uses an analogy it is important to try to understand the point of the analogy and refute such point……refuting the analogy itself is useless.

Your analogy itself is useless.

The reason recipies use nice and round numbers is for ease of communication. It is not because those are "the perfect" ingredients. They are approximations and for a chef, it is easy to take "2 cups of milk" while the "perfect" amount is perhaps rather 2.11203265895456936 cups of milk.

The question is why is it that something of the cosmos can be described by math, I math was not invented with the purpose of explaining the cosmos?

But math IS developed for the exact purpose of modeling phenomena of the world around us.......................

When Newton wanted to model the orbit of celestial bodies, he couldn't because the math of his time didn't allow for it. So he went ahead and invented calculus. Specifically for the purpose of modeling those orbits.

under naturalism how woudl you answer all this questions?

Because reality is governed by deterministic rules/forces, like gravity.
If you drop an object with mass in a vacuum, it will always fall to earth with an acceleration of 9.81 meters per second per second. This allows for describing it using symbolic modeling.

Math works, because the forces of nature are consistent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

the best solution to that problem is theism

First, I don't even agree there is a problem.

But I wonder how you arrive at that conclusion, if not through bare claims motivated by your a priori religious beliefs.

 

[Polymath257]

but anyway, GIVEN NATURALISM, WHY WOULD WE EXPECT TO HAVE A THEORY OF EVERYTHING? WHY WOULDN’T YOU BE SURPRISED?

Naturalism would imply that things have properties. Properties imply the existence of natural laws. Because we are generalists, we attempt to organize the patterns we see. One of our ways of doing this is through mathematics. And mathematics is very flexible concerning what it can do. So, we expect that, over time, the patterns we discover will have an overall patterns (in our minds) that describes all of the patterns.

Whether this will actually be the case or not is yet to be seen.

 

[Polymath257]

I didn’t say that the fundamental constants are “nice” The claim is that the universe is understandable and describable by simple and elegant mathematical equations.
(this argumetn has nothign to do with the constants)
.

Actually, you *did* make the prediction that the constants would be nice. That prediction failed.

Now, you claim that the constants don't have to be nice, but the basic laws have to be simple and elegant. But, again, that is not the case (have you ever seen the Lagrangian for the Standard Model? have you ever actually written out what Einstein's equations say?).

The actual laws are messy and inelegant. They have rather arbitrary differences between the eigenstates for energy and for color, for example. That means that the quarks that enter into the equations for the strong force are not quite the same as those that enter into the weak forces (there is a rotation between them). This also happens in reverse (and with another rotation) for leptons. And the specific rotations required are not simple: they involve those messy constants (look up the Cabibbo matrix some time).

Next, the terms in the Lagrangian for the different interactions rely on 'representations' from group theory. But, those representations aren't quite what actually happens. There needs to be a symmetry breaking on top of that to get the actual particles we see.

So, in almost every term of the Lagrangian for the Standard Model, there is inelegance: at no point is the 'elegant' solution taken. Instead, it is always messed up by some extra factor.

So, on BOTH of your predictions: that the constants would be 'nice' and that the basic equations would be elegant, your hypothesis fails miserably.

Instead, what we see is humanities desperate attempts to get one set of equations to deal with everything and having to adjust and twiddle with things to get them to fit.

 

[Polymath257]

The issue is that often , we use math to describe stuff that goes beyond the original purpose of that particular math………


The issue is that often , we use math to describe stuff that goes beyond the original purpose of that particular math……… often the math and the physics are developed independently and miraculously then match up.
.

We often use language to describe things that goes well beyond the original purpose of the language. And, often, that language is useful beyond that original purpose.

The parts of math that 'match up' are actually pretty small. And the matching is far from perfect. Humans use whatever they can to model patterns we find.

 

[questfortruth]

For decades, theoretical physicists have been trying two fundamental physics theories - General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics - into a single encompassing theory - the Theory of Everything.

Do you think it is possible, one day, to combine them and to solve this problem?

Or is impossible?

No evidence for the existence of such theory, because:
1. No gravitons are detected, moreover, they are possible in Einstein's worldview.
2. The proton has not yet decades.

 

[gnostic]

2. The proton has not yet decades.

You have obviously never study chemistry before.

In all cases of every atoms, EXCEPT WITH the hydrogen atom, the nucleus of each atom, comprised of number of protons and neutrons.

But in the case, of the hydrogen atom, it normally has no neutron in the nucleus. A neutral hydrogen has one proton (in the nucleus, but no hydrogen) and one electron.

(Noted that I said “normally”, because a hydrogen atom can have 1 neutron in the hydrogen nucleus, hence it is isotope, often called deuterium or “heavy hydrogen”.)

But hydrogen can lose a electron, hence hydrogen ion is an hydrogen atom with no electron, HENCE, a hydrogen ion is a “free proton”.

So yes, a proton has been detected, when hydrogen nuclei lose their electrons, hence hydrogen ions

Science have also detected “free neutron” too...you should read up on nuclear physics.

Free neutrons can either occur during nuclear fission or during nuclear fusion. When radioactive object start to decay, like during nuclear fission, different particles could be ejected from unstable atom.

Surely, you have alpha radiation, beta radiation and gamma radiation?

There is a 4th type of particle radiation - neutron radiation. Scientists have detected “free neutron”.

Either free proton and free neutron can eject from their nuclei, during experiments using particle accelerators. Hence detection of neutrons or protons.

You really shouldn’t make false statement like proton cannot be detected, when they have already occurred.

 

[paarsurrey]

Theory of Everything

"God did it" is already there, please. Right?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

Theory of Everything

"God did it" is already there, please. Right?

God did it, is just superstition, not science.