Is There A Method/theory To Determine Everything In The Universe Except For Mathematics?

[Sweetu]

Everything relies on mathematics . From your descion making/emotions ( complex chemical reaction in your brain) to black holes. Everything can be calculated/predicted. Although we don't have the technology to do such complex problems, we will have it in a distant future. Mathematics forms the basis of everything. Like maths, which is a fundamental explanation to everything ( for now), is there anything other than it that can form a base to explain everything in universe and is it possible to make some theory like it?

Is there anything that doesn't depend on mathematics ?

 

University students/professors pls answer.

 

Subject ( maths /psychology/physics/philosophy ) ​

[GAHD]

Is there anything that doesn't depend on mathematics ?

 ​

Psychology(except when it uses statistics).

History for the most part.

Philosophy(though it sometimes pretends to have a type of math.)

Religion and Lesbian dance theory?

 

[Sweetu]

Psychology(except when it uses statistics).

History for the most part.

Philosophy(though it sometimes pretends to have a type of math.)

Religion and Lesbian dance theory?

 

Psychology is related to your brain and how you think. But how and what you think is dependent on the chemicals present in your brain. These chemicals are formed from complex series of reactions. And chemical reactions can be calculated /predicted. So if we have a very powerful computer, we can effectively run a simulation of the human mind and the interference of all these chemicals to determine/predict each and every action of an individual. So basically it also depends on mathematics. It's somewhat the same case with philosophy. Religion is basically what you believe in. Your beliefs again depend on your emotional and mental state

Mental state depends on the chemicals in your brain and so the cycle continues, eventually requiring high level of mathematics.

As for lesbian dance what the frcik even is it?

Edited April 24, 2020 by Sweetu

[Mutex]

Yes, it's the scientific method, correctly applied.

 

Math alone gets you nowhere (well sort of), mathematics is a language, it is descriptive but not (edit) prescriptive (not proscriptive). As a language it can represent fact or fiction, Mathematics is just a formal language. 

 

An important thing to understand is that mathematical completeness does not mean an accurate description of physical reality. Unfortunately many in theoretical physics and cosmology have lost sight of this fact. They tend to think that mathematical completeness does equal physical reality.

 

This results in GIGO feedback system (Garbage in, Garbage out), but in the real world it does not work out that way, nature has a habbit of not agreeing with the math, that does not mean the maths breaks down, but it could mean it is mis-applied.

 

Nature is full of limits, ideals (ideal components) do not exist in reality. That means that even if the math says something it does not mean that is what is going to happen in the real world.

 

Simple electrical theory, Ohms Law, I=V/R that means if I place a zero ohm resister across and charged capacitor, I will get INFINITE current for ZERO time. 

Ohms law did not 'break down', however it assumes ideal components (perfect components) that simply do not and can not exist in the real world. 

 

There is no such thing as a zero ohm resister, but more importantly there is no such thing as an ideal capacitor, it will have these natural, real world limits, the capacitor will have an internal resistance for example. So no matter what the value of resistance you put across it, you will get a finite current over a finite and non-zero amount of time.

 

What you have to do is understand that maths does not always reflect reality, and that reality does not deal with abstracts or ideals (perfect principles), nature has physical limits, it has a speed limit for example, it has a minimum temperate, a maximum density of matter, a minimum volume of space. 

 

What you need to do in intelligently and strictly apply the scientific method.

 

You observe an effect (apple falls from a tree), you develop a very specific hypothesis, you calculate the consequences of that hypothesis, and you compare that with nature by observation and experiment, and you test it for 'reasonableness'. 

 

I was arguing with a person the other day about singularities in black holes, he was telling me that they certainly exist in a black hole because the math says they do.

 

My argument against the black hole singularity was that just because the way you apply general relativity mathematics and you reduce volume of space to zero, that does not mean you end up with an infinite density mass, with infinite gravity that consumes ZERO volume of space. 

 

This is all for the same reason for why I do not get infinite current out of a capacitor for zero time if I place zero ohms across it. 

 

You can't just say black holes has singularities... because the math says so, you HAVE to give it a 'sniff test' you have to compare with nature by observation and experiment and reasonableness. 

 

It's a mistake to think that maths is anything but a strict language, that like any other language is can be used to describe both fact and fiction.

 

Just because the math works that way, that does not mean the universe is going to agree with you.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Mutex

[Sweetu]

@MUTEX

 

Well, we haven't really observed any scenario where math was wrong right?

 

Like the case with the resistance, If we simulate behaviour of each and every single atom/quark we can basically predict everything exactly. And simulation involves complex maths.

 

As for black holes, EINSTEIN's theory has been proved/observed and fits in perfectly with the universe we currently know. Although now, with some new discoveries, some scientists are questioning his theory because it's not fitting in with the new discoveries. Maybe it's time for a new revolutionary theory in the distant future.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Sweetu

[Mutex]

@MUTEX

 

Well, we haven't really observed any scenario where math was wrong right?

 

Like the case with the resistance, If we simulate behaviour of each and every single atom/quark we can basically predict everything exactly. And simulation involves complex maths.

 

As for black holes, EINSTEIN's theory has been proved/observed and fits in perfectly with the universe we currently know. Although now, with some new discoveries, some scientists are questioning his theory because it's not fitting in with the new discoveries. Maybe it's time for a new revolutionary theory in the distant future.

 

Often, probably most often the mathematics is right, correct and complete, the logic and reasoning might also be correct, but the axioms or assumptions are wrong.

 

That is what I was saying about mathematical completeness does not mean that is what nature actually does, if you make incorrect assumptions even right or correct math will give you the wrong answer.

 

That is why we have to rely on a methodology to established that our axioms or guesses or assumptions are valid or if they are not valid, that is what the scientific method is for.

 

You cannot just accept that if the math works out that that is all you need to do, you have to test your mathematical conclusions with a comparison with the real world, by observation, testing and experiment.

If you don't follow that final step you have no way to know if you are on the right path to an understanding or insight, you are at that point just blindly guessing and that is not what science does.

 

Incorrectly applying correct math will give an incorrect result, correctly applying incorrect result will give an incorrect result, but you can only know that if you test and compare your math (your description in the language of mathematics) to reality.

 

 

Like the case with the resistance, If we simulate behaviour of each and every single atom/quark we can basically predict everything exactly. And simulation involves complex maths.

 

That's using mathematics to prove mathematics, simulating a simulation to prove your simulation. I=V/R predicts exactly what should happen if you put zero ohms across a charged capacitor (or ideal voltage source), you will get infinite current. It does predict exactly what should happen.... But that is not what happens. 

 

Ohms law is correct and it is complete and has never shown to be wrong (It cannot be wrong because it is a 'by definition' law). Ohms law is not breaking down at zero ohms, However, your axioms are incorrect, nature does not do ideal components like capacitors with no series resistance and inductance, and also stray capacitance. 

 

 

As for black holes, EINSTEIN's theory has been proved/observed and fits in perfectly with the universe we currently know. Although now, with some new discoveries, some scientists are questioning his theory because it's not fitting in with the new discoveries. Maybe it's time for a new revolutionary theory in the distant future.

 

First part is absolutely correct, is observed and there is no observations at all that contradict relativity, as it stands (for now, and probably forever) relativity IS how the universe works. Sometimes if something is right, it is right in that it is actually that way it is. In a scientific context it still has to be falsifiable, but it just might be how it is.

 

There are no new discoveries at all that has been successful at putting relativity into question. 

 

Some (many) scientists, are using a purely math based approach to question it, and that it the point of my posts, that a purely math based approached does not cut it in science, you have to confirm your assumption have merit, and the only way to can do that is by observation, experiment and analysis. You have to compare it with nature.

 

So are the equations of relativity wrong? No they are correct, Does relativity break down in a black hole? There is no evidence that indicates that it does.

 

Is there other evidence, experiment or observation that puts into doubt that relativity is wrong and that black holes have singularities? Turns out there are.

 

Some years ago there was public interest and concern that at CERN they stated they could well be producing micro black holes at CERN in the LHC.

 

The model they were applying was relativity and the Schwarzschild radius, Using those axioms they believed they were achieving the required density of matter to create singularities that could be detected.

 

They found NONE. The math they used is correct, relativity is correct, but the application and assumptions that went into the math was not correct.

[Sweetu]

@MUTEX

 

So, math is always correct if applied properly /if the approach is correct. If any theory is even partially incomplete/cannot be observed in real world ( like the infinite current one), the math breaks down. Are you trying to say this?

 

Sorry if I waste your time but I'm not very educated in higher maths/physics. I have interest in it and have reaserched what I can from the internet and understood some things . I'm an undergraduate.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Sweetu

[Mutex]

@MUTEX

 

So, math is always correct if applied properly /if the approach is correct. If any theory is even partially incomplete/cannot be observed in real world ( like the infinite current one), the math breaks down. Are you trying to say this?

 

Sorry if I waste your time but I'm not very educated in higher maths/physics. I have interest in it and have reaserched what I can from the internet and understood some things . I'm an undergraduate.

 

Mathematics is just a language, the same as English is a language, as you know with the English language you can say things that are right and you can say things that are wrong, you can say things that are true and things that are false and you can say thing that don't make any sense at all.

 

Exactly the same things apply to mathematics, mathematics is a language, it is a more formal language with specific rules and grammar, but just because you use the language of math that does not imply or mean that it is always correct.

 

Just because your grammar is right, just because the 'words' you use are valid and correct does not mean what you are saying is correct.

 

It's a very common misunderstanding, not helped by many science documentaries that imply that mathematical completeness means an accurate description.

 

Mathematics is not science, but like the English language, it can be used to describe science, but like the English language it can be used to describe things that are wrong or fiction, or just rubbish.

 

The trick is to go beyond the particular language you use and understand what is being said as opposed to how it is said and in what language it is said.

 

You just got to keep in mind that mathematics is not 'inerrant' it's just a language used to describe things. Like English or any other language you have to understand what is said and consider that, as opposed to what language it was said in. 

 

You are not wasting my time at all, asking questions and getting answers is the best thing we can do, you don't have to apologise for that, and good luck with your studies, you ask good questions I think you will do well.

[Sweetu]

Ohk thx so much bro.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Sweetu