Mathematical Physics is irrational, as admitted by the Physicists themselves
Posted on: January 1, 2013 - 12:21pm
Offline
Mathematical Physics is irrational, as admitted by the Physicists themselves
The main issue with mathematical physics is that it reifies (i.e. turns abstract concepts into concrete objects) mathematical concepts such as POINTS, FIELDS, FORCE, ect.
Since physics is about explaining how events physically occur, these reifications do not cut it as a rational mechanism. Concepts do not exist in reality, so they certainly do not ACT UPON objects.
http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/12/mathematical-physics-is-irrational-video.html
For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
as someone whose knowledge in this area is admittedly scarce, it has always seemed to me that mathematics is applied to various fields of science not because it "acts upon" anything, but because it has proved useful as a predictor of phenomena.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Physics uses mathematics as a tool to build models of reality that describe and predict the behaviour and properties of observable reality to a useful degree, ie that allows a degree of prediction of how a system will behave under various conditions. It is NOT 'reifying' mathematical concepts, simply showing that by aligning various aspects of empirical reality with certain mathematical expressions , we can 'model' reality to a useful degree.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
iwbiek: "it has proved useful as a predictor of phenomena."
What is proof to you is irrelevant to your neighbor. Proof, truth, verification, ect. are NOT scientific. Niether is prediction.
They may be able to use the math to help invent technology or make predictions, but that doesn't change the fact that neither tech. nor predictions are extra-scientific.
Theoretical science is explicitly about explanation. But the mathematical "physicists" cannot explain a single phenomena rationally because they have been trained in reification (turning concepts into objects).
BobSpence: "Physics uses mathematics as a tool to build models of reality that describe and predict the behaviour and properties of observable reality to a useful degree"
Description is merely the first step of science. A hypothesis is a description of an initial scene... the power of science is in explaining HOW the event we described occured. Any child can describe the fact that a ball is PULLED to the earth. The scientific question is, what object extends from the earth to the ball to pull it? This is what all of current theoretical physics fails to explain.
And I repeat, Science has nothing to do with utility. It is PURELY for rationally, unambiguously explaining how a hypothetical event, mediated by hypothetical objects can possibly occur. That is what is called a Theory. The practical application of a Theory has no relevance.
"It is NOT 'reifying' mathematical concepts,"
You are mistaken here. When a mathemagician tells you "two magnets are attracted by their FIELDS" then they have reified a concept. They are telling you that the CONCEPT of "a" field is physically reaching out of the bar of iron, grabbing the other and pulling it in.
It's as ludicrous as saying "Love moves mountains."
For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com
Furthermore the mathematics that best describe reality is statistical mathematics. Mathematics proper is nothing but an abstract tautological tool, much like the video identified. What I don't understand is why you would include Feynman as a strawman in your video. He is likely the most intellectually honest of all the celebrity physicists. This is on of the best minds of our times, and he is quoted to say something like:
"The next question was — what makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth. The only difference is that the angels sit in a different direction and their wings push inward"
As for most of the other points you've raised in your video, most of them seem to be based on misconceptions about how scientific theories work. Scientific theories best describe observable data, they don't define observable data with absolute certainty.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
""Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc"
Precisely! Science sets no laws, laws are only tautologies. In science, the best we can do is hypothesis and then explain the hypothesis.
""The next question was — what makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth. The only difference is that the angels sit in a different direction and their wings push inward""
Feynman understood that he had no rational explanation for why planets are all pulled toward each other, but answering questions like that are exactly what science is for. A theory IS an explanation, not a description as you state.
Like I said before, a description, e.g. "An apple falls to the ground at 9.8m/s^2) is something a child can do with a tape measurer and a stopwatch. Explaining HOW nature performs this magic trick in a rational way that can be understood is what the great challenge is.
"observable data"
Science has nothing to do with observation... ONLY explanation. Observation requires a subjective interpretation. All we can do is illustrate or imagine hypothetical objects and then explain how the objects interact. ALL hypothetical objects proposed by mathematical physicists are irrational, either by virtue of their inexplicable behavior (HOW do two electron marbles hold atoms together?) or by virtue of them being reified concepts (point particles, fields, forces, event horizons). This is why the theories of mathematical physics fail at the conceptual level and cannot be explained.
Whether or not the math can be applied to tech or in making predictions, again I stress, makes NO difference. If the theory is irrational (i.e. defines terms loosely, uses abstract concepts as actors in reality, ect.) then it cannot possibly be understood.
For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com
Welcome aboard IntegratedPost. I'm glad I didn't accidentally delete your account in my morning deletion of 50 accounts with monikers that look spammy. I'd love to see you make a few more posts here. Please stick around.
Here's an example of that morning spam roundup... Atheism United recent changes.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Other than the fact you do not appear to understand science in general nor physics in particular much less "mathematical physics" (you probably mean theoretical physics) whatever you might mean by that, not bad. You might also get around to defining what you mean by your usage of "rational" some day. In the mean time you are mis-using proof as nothing in science is ever proven.
In any event you inability to understand something says nothing about the thing itself but rather only speaks to limits of your abilities.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Anyone look at where the source of this information is coming from?
And a little helpful advice. Try to learn to use the [quote ] function when quoting other people. It helps the reader distinguish better between your words and theirs. You can hit the "quote" button at the bottom of each post.
Or copy and past the text with the following syntax,
Open quote looks like this without any spaces [quote...]Remove the dots, I put them there for example reasons.
Close quote looks like this [/quote.....]
It will end up looking like this if you do it right.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog