Mathematics was the creation of the destruction of the earliest forms of "guestimated bargaining", which was made possible due to the destruction of a previously unstable, constantly-warring society by the creation of more permanent civilizations which some argue was only due to the destruction of supernatural folklore as laws that govern reality due to the creation of science resulting in the creation of powerful, history shaping innovation. — Outlander

Can you say all that without taking a breath? I maintain that at the present time my form is harmless and non-destructive. :razz:

There is no such thing as a creation without a destruction, and a destruction without a creation — leo

I disagree with the generality of this statement. As an example, I recently "created" a "form" in mathematics that simply extends a particular kind of function. Nothing is destroyed in this process. As to whether this creation is of any importance, I admit it is quite unimportant. :chin:

Famous Introverts

A very thoughtful thread, Corinne. As a mathematician I find the quality productive, but in balance with social aspects of the discipline. :cool:

Wouldn't your definition for "action" be a lot simpler, and say essentially the same thing if it was worded something like this: "anything which results in a change"? — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree.

I am a scientist — Sir Philo Sophia

Having made that statement you are obliged to supply details.

my definition does not require any thinking — Sir Philo Sophia

Another gem from this forum. :grin:

↪fishfry
I admire and appreciate the trouble you go to here and elsewhere to put some of us back on the right track - even as some of us go right back off the rails! — tim wood

Kudos to fishfry and fdrake, resident experts in set theory. Both demonstrate great patience in unraveling the queries on that subject that crop up on TPF. :up:

Who cares about top speed? How about bringing light speed down to my neighborhood limit! :cool:

Light travels at 38 MPH

X=X+1 can never be true — Book273

Of course it can. As a recursion statement in BASIC. I use stuff like this all the time.

Nothing is nothing of a paradox. :roll:

I'm pretty sure a logarithmic spiral is the same as the Fibonacci sequence, if not incredibly similar. — Justin Peterson

Close, but no cigar. :wink:

"The golden spiral is a logarithmic spiral that grows outward by a factor of the golden ratio for every 90 degrees of rotation (polar slope angle about 17.03239 degrees). It can be approximated by a "Fibonacci spiral", made of a sequence of quarter circles with radii proportional to Fibonacci numbers. " (Wikipedia)

Could be used to communicate with the future via technology — Enrique

Why bother? Just use cuneiform on clay tablets. It works.

. . . with enough precision by experiment to make the model useful for predicting retroactive causality amongst categories of wavicle ensemble, — Enrique

No comment.

Not having been a number theorist I had not thought about the Fibonacci sequence in a long while, recalling its definition, rabbit populations, and the relationship with the Golden Ratio, so I was surprised at the lengthy Wikipedia article about it.

If the Universe is like the Fibonacci sequence — Justin Peterson

I assume this is a metaphysical conjecture. Galaxy spirals, to my knowledge, aren't necessarily Fibonacci related. A logarithmic spiral might describe some of them. I don't know. A Golden Spiral is a special case of a log spiral, but I don't think there is evidence it predominates in galaxies. :cool:

I sometimes wonder if philosophy can really contribute anything about the quantum world. All the talk of waves and excitations and duality hasn't brought clarity to that tiny kingdom. It may be that Max Tegmark's mathematical universe ideas actually exist and the understanding of quantum phenomena is nothing more than understanding the mathematics that yields predictable results. And that mathematical edifice is, at present, not adequately described by existing mathematical applications.

What was it Feynman said about it? That it was kind of dippy. One should not have to regularize or renormalize in such bizarre ways to get predictive results. Once the true mathematical structure is found, then it may be the only way to "understand" quantum science.

Do you mean experimental physicists or perhaps engineers? — magritte

I don't mean anything. This is a Wikipedia article. Argue with them. :cool:

Since I piddle around with dynamics in the complex plane - force (vector) fields that predict the movements of particles, I suppose I am somewhat a "mathematical physicist". Like you, magritte, I will await my Nobel Prize in the mail! :victory:

There are theoretical physicists (hand waving) and mathematical physicists (mathematicians working in physics). — jgill


To be fair, I don't think that these disciplines are very distinct — SophistiCat

There are theoretical physicists (hand waving) and mathematical physicists (mathematicians working in physics). — jgill

Even speculative physics of other possible physical worlds is intended to be fully mathematical as soon as the needed maths are invented. Without mathematics what physics is there? — magritte

You guys . . . :roll:

Wikipedia:

Mathematical vs. theoretical physics

The term "mathematical physics" is sometimes used to denote research aimed at studying and solving problems in physics or thought experiments within a mathematically rigorous framework. In this sense, mathematical physics covers a very broad academic realm distinguished only by the blending of some mathematical aspect and physics theoretical aspect. Although related to theoretical physics,[3] mathematical physics in this sense emphasizes the mathematical rigour of the similar type as found in mathematics.

On the other hand, theoretical physics emphasizes the links to observations and experimental physics, which often requires theoretical physicists (and mathematical physicists in the more general sense) to use heuristic, intuitive, and approximate arguments.[4] Such arguments are not considered rigorous by mathematicians, but that is changing over time[citation needed] .

Such mathematical physicists primarily expand and elucidate physical theories. Because of the required level of mathematical rigour, these researchers often deal with questions that theoretical physicists have considered to be already solved. However, they can sometimes show that the previous solution was incomplete, incorrect, or simply too naïve. Issues about attempts to infer the second law of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics are examples. Other examples concern the subtleties involved with synchronisation procedures in special and general relativity (Sagnac effect and Einstein synchronisation).

The effort to put physical theories on a mathematically rigorous footing not only developed physics but also has influenced developments of some mathematical areas. For example, the development of quantum mechanics and some aspects of functional analysis parallel each other in many ways. The mathematical study of quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and quantum statistical mechanics has motivated results in operator algebras. The attempt to construct a rigorous mathematical formulation of quantum field theory has also brought about some progress in fields such as representation theory.

You overlooked my "may not be the same"

There's no shortage of confidence on TPF. Amusing at time. :smile:

Theoretical mathematical physics is Pythagorean-Platonic — magritte

You are lumping two things together here that may not be the same: There are theoretical physicists (hand waving) and mathematical physicists (mathematicians working in physics).

More government benefits and support in metro areas, a greater degree of socialism. Seems obvious.

What it represents is our inability to actually understand the true nature of emission and absorption. — Metaphysician Undercover

Therefore it is simply a vicious circle of misunderstanding, manifesting as the appearance of conspiracy — Metaphysician Undercover

From what little I know of the subject, these are reasonable comments.

(Oddly, I am working on a problem in elementary complex dynamical systems that has me caught up in a circular argument that must be broken: To show a certain sequence converges one needs to show it is bounded, but to prove it is bounded reflects back to its convergence behavior. It looks like a step-by-step argument alternating between the two will be the ticket.)

Think of a topological map with waves flowing over peaks and valleys that gradually change form as if by erosion and seismic shifting. — Enrique

Topographical map, perhaps? If it is topological, what are the open sets?

The ‘infinite wave’ you refer to, I see as a six-dimensional structure of seemingly infinite possibility or ‘meaning’. — Possibility

Entertaining notion.

As long as we're talking about credentials or lack thereof, what's your area of expertise? — Enrique

Certain dynamical structures in complex function theory. I don't say much in these Quantum discussions because I know very little about the subject. But that apparently is insufficient reason for others on TPF to not post their views. Oh well . . . :cool:

I'm going to be expecting that Nobel prize in the mail. — Enrique

Send me your mailing address. I'll print one out on my computer and send it. You deserve no less!
:cool:

I didn't get trained in philosophy for nothing. — Enrique

How about physics? :roll:

I thought Enrique's exposition looked a bit weird, but waited for someone knowledgeable to chime in. :cool:

Is the credibility of the creationists worldview significantly undermined by the progression of scientific understanding and to what extent are they mutually exclusive? — Julz

As for the professions, I doubt many scientists spend a lot of time mulling over the existence of a creator, rather they focus on discovering how their corner of the universe works. Some may give a certain credence to intelligent design, but when you speak of a "creator" that sounds like a wholly religious perspective.

Among the mathematicians I've known over the years there have been virtually no discussions of this issue, although there are a few who are or were religious. If you refer to creationists who think Earth is 6,000 years old or the like, I've never met one.

"...can be demonstrated physically if desired" is a stretch. I can imagine flying to the moon in ten seconds, but it ain't happening! :gasp:

Become a subscriber, Chris. Or link an image from an existing (safe) site.

This is an interesting thread and delves into the bizarre nature of some mathematical interpretations in physics, where the math can be crazy but results experimentally verifiable. For example,regularization techniques are used to "sum" series that normally would diverge to infinity. In the Casimir effect, the following weirdness prevails: ${{1}^{3}}+{{2}^{3}}+{{3}^{3}}+\cdots =\frac{1}{120}$ . Also of use is: $1+2+3+\cdots =-\frac{1}{12}$.

These "sums" are obtained by using analytic continuations of the Zeta function, and are jarring to one accustomed to normal mathematical summation. Crazy, in fact. If Kenosha Kid reads this he could tell us more about the physics.

. . . whose existence is inferred from the mathematics — Metaphysician Undercover

The math in QT itself is pretty shaky. Renormalization and regularization procedures are used to manipulate expressions that annoyingly become infinite. And Feynman's "Sum of all paths integral" is not really a functional integral as most mathematicians think of the term. Nevertheless, with a lot of handwaving the physics works out. Here's a quote from Feynman on Wikipedia:

"The shell game that we play is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate." :cry:

A true reflection of quantum physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's amazing how Dirac, Feynman, and others were able to discover the mathematics to deal with a world in which visualization seems so difficult, if not impossible. In high school in the early 1950s we were taught that electrons were like little BBs, flying around atoms. Now they are non-local fields or Poincare groups or whatever, and Feynman tells us to shut up and compute. For me, I don't know enough modern physics to even be wrong. :meh:

To the Greeks, zero didn't make sense. — TheMadFool

And here, unfortunately, neither does nothing. :roll:

What a garbled mess this thread has become. :sad:

Ironically, something similar to "Ectoplasm" and "Spiritual Energy" has been detected and analyzed, not in chemical or biological labs, but in modern computers — Gnomon

It's the same fundamental stuff that "Virtual Particles" are made of — Gnomon

Spiritual energy is a quantum fluctuation? — jgill

No. That's not even close to what I said. — Gnomon

Wiki: In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation

Admittedly, you did say "something similar" to spiritual energy, so that lets you off the hook.

Ironically, something similar to "Ectoplasm" and "Spiritual Energy" has been detected and analyzed, not in chemical or biological labs, but in modern computers — Gnomon

It's the same fundamental stuff that "Virtual Particles" are made of — Gnomon

Spiritual energy is a quantum fluctuation? This is similar to ectoplasm? This sounds a bit like quantum mysticism. But whatever rings your bell.

Could you perform 3D Mathematical modelling of TWO dimensional Geometric shapes in f r/-R+\r ee SpaceTime? — Chris1952Engineer

The space part of space time is 3-D, and since 2-D is a subset of 3-D a flat square would be just that, much as you looking at one on a piece of paper. I must be missing your point. If so, please explain in normal language without all the extra symbols. I take it you were born in 1952 and are a retired engineer.

On the other hand you define metaphysics that allows interpretation of sub-particle activities to be of the same value and service to mankind, as witch burning and seances — god must be atheist

Good point. However, should ectoplasm be detected and analyzed in a laboratory your perspective could have merit. :chin:

This is because there must always be a future before there is a past. — Metaphysician Undercover

I question whether a future is necessary and not merely sufficient for a past.

Mindspace : The residence of one's state of dudeness — Gnomon

Right out of the 1960s, man! :joke:

However, I resent the implication that I understand talking to spirits, only because I understand wave function — god must be atheist

Thanks for this gem. Makes reading these threads worthwhile. :smile:

When I read this I thought "that is how I feel about mathematics!" and I went on to read a book about Post Modernism and Mathematics, and now I am in the middle of another book called Why is There a Philosophy of Mathematics at All. — Gregory

When you finish this last book, let us know the answer, please. :roll:

Does this ALL make sense to you? — Chris1952Engineer

Too weird. Sorry :roll:

You need to work on an axiomatic foundation for counting squares.

Math is not inherently two dimensional, although that's how the student is initially introduced to the subject. For example, college calculus normally follows a pattern established by what used to be a prerequisite course in 2-D: Analytic Geometry. But I think there are universities that begin calculus in n-dimensions. Or, I know that's been attempted. However, high school students work generally in 2-D since it is easier to visualize and thus convey principles and doesn't require complicated spatial intricacies.

Traditionally, pen and paper were the instruments of discovery and promulgation of mathematical knowledge. These days there is much math done in n-dimensions or infinite dimensions.

I don’t think anyone on the thread supported people not working entirely - referring to your two posts talking about supporting people who don’t wish to work — The Questioning Bookworm

Not on this thread, but in the past on this forum. I recall Frank Apisa (who was expelled) was one. I certainly never took that position. I've mentioned before meeting young Brits in England in 1985 who pooled their doles to rent a house, and then pursued their common interest, which paid nothing.

Are there an infinite number of dimensions higher than the 4d spacetime that defines our universe outside of our universe? — an-salad

Yes. And I have been there. Believe me. :nerd:

Here's another one: Infinite Brooch