diff options
| author | Andrew <andrew@andrewyu.org> | 2022-11-12 14:50:27 +0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Automatic Merge <andrew+automerge@andrewyu.org> | 2023-07-15 00:29:33 +0800 |
| commit | f5ace6c8bf6d4ea2231cc27caa90b9452206435c (patch) | |
| tree | d3eed96bb832be2a3a8ce45473cc1d66d0c225ad | |
| parent | e0d936ef040c91f5c0ed8d4af56adf351bbc63cf (diff) | |
| download | www-f5ace6c8bf6d4ea2231cc27caa90b9452206435c.tar.gz | |
10: Math, Science, and Philosophy
| -rw-r--r-- | article/index.html | 1 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | article/math-science-and-philosophy.html | 214 |
2 files changed, 215 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/article/index.html b/article/index.html index 861fd36..78a388d 100644 --- a/article/index.html +++ b/article/index.html @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ <p>Pages for other projects (i.e. Evosaur) are not listed—only independent articles are listed here. These are sorted from newest to oldest. Some do not come with HTML anchors: these articles are not published online, but are still listed here. For these, you may ask me for a copy in real life, but it is within my rights to decline such requests.</p> <p><a href="/contact.html">Feel free to comment on any of the articles.</a></p> <ul> + <li><a href="math-science-and-philosophy.html">Math, Science, and Philosophy</a> (9)</li> <li><a href="the-old-web-was-better.html">The Old Web Was Better</a> (9)</li> <li><a href="free-hardware.html">Free Hardware</a> (8)</li> <li>A Fragile Society (7)</li> diff --git a/article/math-science-and-philosophy.html b/article/math-science-and-philosophy.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4252fd9 --- /dev/null +++ b/article/math-science-and-philosophy.html @@ -0,0 +1,214 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en"> + <head> + <title>Math, Science, and Philosophy</title> + <link rel="stylesheet" href="/plain.css" /> + <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon" /> + <meta charset="utf-8" /> + </head> + <body> +<h1>Math, Science, and Philosophy</h1> +<p>This document is still in discussion and may be improved over time.</p> +<p>Article ID: 10</p> +<p>Utilities developed in mathematics are often used to apply theories +of the sciences, such as the use of basic arithmetic, calculus, complex +analysis, and everything in between in empirical/experimental sciences +such as physics. We often take for granted that mathematics as we know +it today would work in the sciences. However, considering my impression +of math as formally being a creation and natural sciences being mostly +observant, it is worth questioning the linkage between these subjects, +and whether our use of mathematics, especially in the prediction of +theories of physics, is logically linked to the physics itself, or just +so happens to a coincidence which we ought to explain.</p> +<p>This article attempts to address these questions, but cannot provide +a full answer, for which extensive research would be required which time +does not allow for. Rather, this shall be treated as a brief +brain-teaser, which discussions may evolve from the text itself, or from +the various editorial footnotes and bugs. I would like to, afterwards, +complete this article and make it comprehensive and structured, but I'll +need ideas from the discussion.</p> +<h2 id="invented-or-discovered">Invented or discovered?</h2> +<p>Initially, it feels like mathematics is a pure invention of the human +mind. Formal definitions of mathematical systems (albeit unsuccessful in +creating the complete and consistent system intended) such as that +presented in <span class="smallcaps">Pincipia Mathematica</span> do not +refer to any tangible objects and are purely conceptual. Deriving +theorems from axioms and other theorems, applying general theorems to +specific conditions, etc. are all, formally, abstract activities with +little reference to the physical world.</p> +<p>However, humans do not truly invent ideas out of pure thought. The +basic building blocks of our analytical cognition, which may be in some +sense considered ``axioms'' of our perspective of the world, results from +us observing the world around us, finding patterns, which then evolve +into abstract ideas. Consider the possibility that the formation of +numbers as a concept in mathematics results from humans using primitive +ideas that resemble numbers to count and record enumerations of discrete +objects. Then as people had the need to express non-integer amounts, +fractions, and later decimals (or primitive ideas and representations +thereof), were born. Previously discrete concepts, numbers, are now used +to represent values on continuous spectrums, such as volume, mass, etc. +But then consider an alternative world where we are jellyfish swimming +through blank water: although this concept of volume is applicable to +blank water, it is arguable whether the numeric representation and thus +the concept of numerical volume would exist in the first place with the +absence of discrete objects. This is an example on how human sense +perception affects the process for which we invent mathematics, even if +the formal definition thereof does not refer to tangible objects, not to +mention how many mathematical constructs such as calculus were +specifically created to solve physics problems but is defined in terms +of pure math.</p> +<p>Ultimately, even formally defined axiomatic systems have their axioms +based on human intuition, which in turn is a result of perspective +observing of the natural world.</p> +<p>Additionally, let's take the time to appreciate how well often +mathematical concepts, formally defined by human intuition and logic, +map to experimentally verifiable physical concepts. This further +suggests how natural sciences has an effect on mathematics. (See +Section <a href="#applicability-in-science" data-reference-type="ref" +data-reference="applicability-in-science">[applicability-in-science]</a> +for details.)</p> +<p>The way I like to think about it is: The system of mathematics is +formally an invention, but the intuition that led to the axioms, and +what theorems we think about and prove, are the result of human +discovery. There are both elements to it, and a dichotomous +classification would be inappropriate.</p> +<h2 id="applicability-in-science">Applicability in Science</h2> +<p>Despite how mathematics was likely inspired by tangible perception, +the vast majority of modern formal mathematical constructs originate +theoretically. In fact, as seen with the use of complex Hilbert space in +quantum mechanics, mathematical concepts are sometimes developed much +earlier than a corresponding physics theory which utilizes it +extensively. It is impressive how formal creations of humans' intuition +for beauty in pure math has such a mapping and reflection in the real +world.</p> +<p>This naturally leads us to a question: How is math used in +experimental sciences? Why? Is that use consistent and based logically, +or would it possibly be buggy?</p> +<p>I believe that mathematics has two main roles in physics. The first +is calculations, often as an abstraction of experimental experience into +a general formula, which is then applied to specific questions. With the +knowledge that <span +class="math inline"><em>F</em> = <em>m</em><em>a</em></span> and that +<span +class="math inline"><em>a</em> = 10 m/s<sup>2</sup>, <em>m</em> = 1 kg</span>, +we conclude that <span class="math inline"><em>F</em> = 10 N</span>. But +many times this involves or implies the second role of math in physics, +because calculations depend on corresponding concepts, and sometimes the +mathematical utilities themselves are developed from physics but are +defined in terms of pure math (such as calculus): physicists analogize +mathematical concepts with tangible physical objects and physics +concepts, and think about the physical world in a mathematically +abstract way. For example, the <span class="math inline">SU(3)</span> +group which finds it origins in the beauties of pure math (group theory +is inherently about symmetry), is used extensively in the physics of +elementary particles to represent particle spin.<a href="#fn1" +class="footnote-ref" id="fnref1" role="doc-noteref"><sup>1</sup></a> But +for the latter of these use-cases, I am skeptical. Mathematics as we +know it is incomplete (Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, in summary, +proves that any system of mathematics with Peano Arithmetic cannot prove +all true statements in its own system), possibly inconsistent (Gödel's +second incompleteness theorem, in summary, proves that any system of +mathematics with Peano Arithmetic cannot prove its own consistency), and +is somewhat unpredictable (Turing's halting problem, basically saying +that it is impossible to, without running the algorithm itself, predict +whether a general algorithm would halt or would run forever). We haven't +found major loopholes for inconsistency yet, but it is astonishing how +mathematics, a system of such theoretical imperfection, is used in every +part of physics, not just for its calculations but also for +representation of ideas down to the basic level. I find this to be +uncanny. What if the physics theories we derive are erroneous because of +erroneous mathematical systems or concepts? I believe that part of the +answer is ``experiments'', to return to the empirical nature of, well, +empirical sciences, and see if the theories actually predict the +results. But there are tons of logistical issues that prevent us from +doing so, not to mention the inherent downside to experiments: a limited +number of attempts cannot derive a general-case theory (take the Borwein +integral as an example: a limited number of experiments may easily +conclude that it's always <span class="math inline"><em>π</em></span> +while it's actually less than <span +class="math inline"><em>π</em></span> after the 15<sup>th</sup> +iteration). So then, we turn to logical proof. But then because +mathematical logic is incomplete, we are not guaranteed to be able to +prove a given conjecture, which may be otherwise indicated by +experiments, to be correct.</p> +<h2 id="random-ideas">Random Ideas</h2> +<p>Here are some of my random ideas that I haven't sorted into +fully-explained paragraphs due to the lack of time to do so. However, I +believe that the general point is here, and I would appreciate a +discussion about these topics.</p> +<ul> +<li><p>What does it even mean to predict physical properties and +theories with mathematical logic?</p></li> +<li><p>Under what circumstance shall mathematical logic be ``trusted'' in +physics?</p></li> +<li><p>How is it possible to know <em>anything</em> in physics? +Experiments can be inaccurate or conducted wrongly or can be affected by +physical properties completely unknown to us, and mathematical proof can +be erroneous because of systematic flaws and/or false assumptions about +the representation of physical entities in math.</p></li> +<li><p>Gödel's theorems only tell us that there <em>are</em> true +statements that we cannot prove, and there <em>may be</em> +inconsistencies. My intuition suggests that these statements and +inconsistencies would be in the highly theoretical realm of math, which +if accurately identified and are avoided in physics, would not pose a +threat to applied mathematics in physics.</p> +<p>However, it shall be noted that any single inconsistency may be +abused to prove any statement, if consistencies were to be found in +math: Suppose that we know a statement <span +class="math inline"><em>A</em></span> (i. e. physics is squishy) is both +true and false. Thus, <span class="math inline"><em>A</em> = 1</span> +and <span class="math inline"><em>A</em> = 0</span> are both true. Then, +take a random statement <span class="math inline"><em>B</em></span> +(let's say ``Joey likes humanities''). Thus we have <span +class="math inline"><em>A</em> + <em>B</em> = 1</span> where <span +class="math inline">+</span> is a boolean ``or'' operator because <span +class="math inline"><em>A</em> = 1</span> and <span +class="math inline">1 + <em>x</em> = 1</span> (<span +class="math inline"><em>x</em></span> is any statement). But then +because <span class="math inline"><em>A</em> = 0</span>, thus <span +class="math inline">0 + <em>B</em> = 1</span>, which means that <span +class="math inline"><em>B</em></span> must be 1 (if <span +class="math inline"><em>B</em></span> is zero, then <span +class="math inline">0 + 0 = 0</span>). Thus, if we can prove that +``physics is squishy'' and ``physics is not squishy'' (without differences +in definition), then we can literally prove that ``Joey likes +humanities''. Other from not defining subjective things like ``squishy'' +and ``is'' (in terms of psychology), we can't get around this easily, and +everything would be provable, which would not be fun for +physics.</p></li> +</ul> +<h2 class="unnumbered" id="bugs">Bugs</h2> +<ul> +<li><p>No citations present for referenced materials. Thus, this article +is not fit for publication, and shall not be considered an authoritative +resource. The addition of references will massively improve the status +of this article.</p></li> +<li><p>The ideas are a bit messy. The structure needs to be reorganized. +Repetition is prevalent and must be reduced to a minimum.</p></li> +</ul> +<h2 class="unnumbered" id="acknowledgements">Acknowledgements</h2> +<p>Multiple documents were consulted in the writing of this article, +which sometimes simply summarizes ideas already expressed by others. +Please see the attached reading materials for details. Works of Eugene +Wigner were especially helpful.</p> +<p>Contributors include many YK Pao School students and faculty. +Insightful conversations with friends have given me great inspiration in +the ideas expressed in this article and discussions are still ongoing. +For privacy reasons their names aren't listed, but I would be happy to +put names on here at request/suggestion.</p> +<section id="footnotes" class="footnotes footnotes-end-of-document" +role="doc-endnotes"> +<hr /> +<ol> +<li id="fn1"><p>I'm not exactly sure about this, though, I can only +comprehend it extremely superficially as I have no experience in +particle physics or in special unitary groups.<a href="#fnref1" +class="footnote-back" role="doc-backlink">↩︎</a></p></li> +</ol> +</section> + <div id="footer"> + <hr /> + <p><a href="/">Andrew Yu's Website</a></p> + </div> + </body> +</html> |