- #71
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Originally posted by Alexander
Define "physical presence".
For a simple definition: The ability to exchange energy, and interact physically with other physical objects.
Originally posted by Alexander
Define "physical presence".
Originally posted by Alexander
Mentat, next time when you claim something, make sure you know well what you are talking about, ok? Otherwise others have to waste their time explaining your errors in understanding how things actually work.
Force is not a "physical" object/subject. It is a pure mathematical phenomenon.
Force has been eliminated out of list of "physical" objects since it was found that there are no forces in nature, but there are interactions of objects obeying certain mathematical symmetries (which we call conservation laws).
Incorrect. Mathematics is way "physical" phenomena (like forces) and "physical" properties (like mass, for instance) emerge to existence.
Say, if the rate of change of momentum in interactions would be zero, then there would be no "forces" in our world.
Originally posted by Alexander
What? Concrete objects? Virtual photons (and virtual gravitons) are "concrete" objects? Tell us about them. What is their origin? Why do they behave certain way?
Originally posted by Tom
You're begging the question here. Mentat is challenging you on this very point! Namely, that you are missing the distinction between abstract and concrete. The position he holds is that the mathematical relationship (an abstract object) describes the physical force (a phenomenon mediated by concrete objects).
Originally posted by Alexander
Let's do some THINKING here (it never hurts).
Originally posted by Alexander
You don't like thinking? I do. It never hurts to think, to analyse, to investigate in depth cause(s) and reason(s) things behave certain way.
Originally posted by Perspectives
Mathematics is an explanation of existence. Its complexity and level of relevance depends on need. Mathematics is to existence what the footprint is to the foot. Everthing discovered or not discovered that is cannot have been constructed from nothing. Therefore mathematics is, was and has always existed.
Originally posted by Alexander
You don't like thinking?
Originally posted by Perspectives
Mathematics is an explanation of existence. Its complexity and level of relevance depends on need. Mathematics is to existence what the footprint is to the foot. Everthing discovered or not discovered that is cannot have been constructed from nothing. Therefore mathematics is, was and has always existed.
Originally posted by Perspectives
Mathematics in its finest detail are composed of symbols and relationships between them. It is truly an expression of the tangible. However, most proven things cannot be held in the hand or seen by the eye but due to things in existence that can, we believe. These things are a model of what is from our perspective and while they are not the things, they like an echo are a part of it. Our existence is composed of all the things that are and the Mathematics are revealed to describe them. Without an object to examine we cannot apply math to it.
Originally posted by Perspectives
Regarding why mathematics can be used to express all phenomena, I hold despite the many varied branches that may be needed, mathematics is a tool that is intrinsic to humans. And that it is very much applicable to all physical phenomena. We may need to create new abstract tools in the future that are mathematical in nature but nonetheless they will be mathematics. I therefore submit, formally expressed notation will be used that abstractly represent the relations in nature and it will perform the service of revealing nature’s inner workings. Mathematics and only mathematics in all its form is necessary and implicit in discovering nature’s mechanisms.
Originally posted by drag
Hmmm...
Alexander doesn't want to play with me...
Originally posted by wimms
Question to ask may be - is there anything AT ALL that mathematics isn't able to describe, including however wild acausally looking relations?
Of course there are things math fails toOriginally posted by wimms
Question to ask may be - is there anything AT ALL that mathematics isn't able to describe, including however wild acausally looking relations?
Originally posted by Perspectives
The universe is an orderly and predictable environment that is reality. I’m sure the O and P statement will bring howls. Our attempt to emulate and capture the rules of the environment is through the discovery of the interrelationships that exist. We do this by creating symbolic relationships that when applied are predictive in nature, we call this mathematics. If math predicts in any reasonable manor the mechanics and mechanisms of the universe then we are merely illuminating that which is from the logic that is already there.
As regards what we call Reality, it is a subjective interpretation, verbal as much as logical, of our formal proofs. Half empty or half full, which is right?
Originally posted by Perspectives
Mathematics is an explanation of existence. Its complexity and level of relevance depends on need. Mathematics is to existence what the footprint is to the foot.
Originally posted by wuliheron
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
And, in turn, the two in the bush are (for all I can determine) worth an infinite number of mathematical white rabbits. [/I] [/B]
Originally posted by Alexander
Small but impotrant correction: Behavior of existing objects is to mathematics what the footprint is to the foot.
Originally posted by Alexander
Wulli - no offense - how much expertise in math do you have?
The reason I am asking is that sometimes people with no or little expertise in some field try to judge that field and get wrong conclusion.
Originally posted by Alexander
So, if a laymann walked into physics conference and said: "I am not an expert in general relativity, but general relativity is clearly wrong", then what? Shall GR be discarded then?
In an ideal would, they would nod in agreement, but not discard GR. Rather, they would agree that inevitably there would be improvements to the theory, but it's the best around at the moment.Originally posted by Alexander
So, if a laymann walked into physics conference and said: "I am not an expert in general relativity, but general relativity is clearly wrong", then what? Shall GR be discarded then?