Hurdles of laymann misunderstanding of mathematics.

  • Thread starter Alexander
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Mathematics
In summary, the conversation revolved around the origin and significance of mathematics in understanding the deepest layers of reality. One person argued that math is the key to understanding nature, while others pointed out that it is the predictive and explanatory power of math that makes it valuable in science. The conversation also touched on the theory of everything, which attempts to unify general relativity with quantum mechanics, and its role in explaining the fundamental laws of nature. Ultimately, the speakers disagreed on the role of math in understanding the universe, with one arguing that it is just a human construct and the other asserting that it is an essential tool for unlocking the mysteries of the universe.
  • #1
Alexander
Because about 50% of people here in Physics Forum (including even some mentors) don't understand origin of math and keep parroting that math is human descriptive construct (see results of poll), I found educational to point to theory which could unearth deepest layer of reality: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007E95C-9597-1DC9-AF71809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

According to this math (which is the only one to unite GR with QM), not only all matter around us, but space and time themselves are just products of math (of geometry, to be more accurate).

This theory deals with metricless objects (Penrose spinors) and quantizying them obtains space and time, gravity and matter.

So, Mentat - what do you say now?

Just acknowledge that the hurdles you posted about mathematics were a result of your layman misunderstanding of mathematics and of its origin.

Laymann "logic" is useless in understanding nature. Math is the key.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Alexander, it's just a theory so far. You can crow when and if it proves out against all that messy unmathematical experimental data.
 
  • #3
Originally posted by Alexander
Because about 50% of people here in Physics Forum (including even some mentors) don't understand origin of math and keep parroting that math is human descriptive construct (see results of poll), I found educational to point to theory which could unearth deepest layer of reality: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007E95C-9597-1DC9-AF71809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

According to this math (which is the only one to unite GR with QM), not only all matter around us, but space and time themselves are just products of math (of geometry, to be more accurate).

I will let you go this one time, on making a statement so dead wrong, because of ignorance. I have studied nothing so much as Theories of Everything (which all attempt to unify GR with QM, and do an excellent job at it, should they be proven correct), and this is definitely not the only, nor the most effecient (IMO), theory.

So, Mentat - what do you say now?

Just acknowledge that the hurdles you posted about mathematics were a result of your layman misunderstanding of mathematics and of its origin.

Why should I do that? Remember, I'm not posting against mathematics. I think one is truly unlucky if they haven't seen the beauty of mathematics' descriptive power. However, I do not believe that something abstract can cause the physical Universe to behave a certain way. I have no reason to believe this, and your put-downs aren't helping your side of the argument at all.

Laymann "logic" is useless in understanding nature. Math is the key.

Yes, math is the key to understanding nature. Why is it that you admit this now, after I have gone through so much trouble to explain to you that that is math's job (not to cause the Universe, but to understand it)?
 
  • #4
Originally posted by Alexander
I found educational to point to theory which could unearth deepest layer of reality: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007E95C-9597-1DC9-AF71809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

We all read that article when it came out. There was an entire thread dedicated to it. It does nothing to prove your point, and the Hurdles that Mentat and I pointed out remain.

According to this math (which is the only one to unite GR with QM), not only all matter around us, but space and time themselves are just products of math (of geometry, to be more accurate).

The theory says nothing of the kind. The from the fundamental mathematical objects of the theory, you get mathematical representations of the forces of nature. Again, the Hurdles against your idealism remain.
 
  • #5


Originally posted by Mentat
. I think one is truly unlucky if they haven't seen the beauty of mathematics' descriptive power.


Scientists do not use math because of its descriptive power. No point - there already is a language for that job.

Scientists use math because of its PREDICTIVE and EXPLANATORY power.
 
  • #6


Originally posted by Tom


Again, the Hurdles against your idealism remain.

Only in rich imagination of some people who don't understand the origin of math (see my many posts about origin of logic and math).
 
  • #7
Originally posted by Alexander
Scientists do not use math because of its descriptive power. No point - there already is a language for that job.

Scientists use math because of its PREDICTIVE and EXPLANATORY power.

You seem to think that "math as a description" and "math as a predictor" are mutually exclusive. Of course, that is false. We can not only describe physical states with math, but we can also describe their time evolution with math. Given those two things together, it is easy to see how mathematics can be said to simultaneously describe and predict.

In any case, it is patently false to say that "Scientists do not use math because of its descriptive power".

This scientist certainly disagrees:

Moreover, they (edit: mathematical equations) often permit an unexpectedly close and accurate description of the phenomena in these connections. Secondly, just because of this circumstance, and because we do not understand the reasons of their usefulness, we cannot know whether a theory formulated in terms of mathematical concepts is uniquely appropriate. We are in a position similar to that of a man who was provided with a bunch of keys and who, having to open several doors in succession, always hit on the right key on the first or second trial. He became skeptical concerning the uniqueness of the coordination between keys and doors.
--Eugene Wigner, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

Instead of telling Mentat how little he knows of math and physics, or of telling him what scientists do and do not think, or of telling him your unfounded assertions over and over, why don't you just address his arguments head on? You have yet to do that even a single time. Come on, either address the arguments or admit that you can't.
 
  • #8


Originally posted by Alexander
Only in rich imagination of some people who don't understand the origin of math (see my many posts about origin of logic and math).

The only person who doesn't understand the origin of math here is you. Mathematics comes from the minds of mathematicians, and mathematical theories of nature come from the minds of theoretical physicists. The Hurdles all center around your failure to recognize that.

Since no one has ever observed a mathematical object with their senses or with an instrument, it is safe to say that such objects are in the categories of abstract (mental) objects. To say that all states are mathematical states is to say that all states reside in the mind, which is idealism.
 
  • #9


Originally posted by Tom
The only person who doesn't understand the origin of math here is you. Mathematics comes from the minds of mathematicians, and mathematical theories of nature come from the minds of theoretical physicists. The Hurdles all center around your failure to recognize that.

Since no one has ever observed a mathematical object with their senses or with an instrument, it is safe to say that such objects are in the categories of abstract (mental) objects. To say that all states are mathematical states is to say that all states reside in the mind, which is idealism.

Yes, this is another serious point, that I have tried to point out to Alexander: His belief denies the existence of an objective Universe (seperate from subjective abstracts), and is thus non-scientific - as Science is based on the assumption that there is an objective Universe.
 

1. What are the common misconceptions about mathematics held by laypeople?

Some common misconceptions about mathematics held by laypeople include the belief that it is only useful for solving complex equations, that it is only for "smart" people, and that it is a rigid subject with no room for creativity.

2. How does the misunderstanding of mathematics affect people's daily lives?

The misunderstanding of mathematics can lead to a lack of confidence in one's own mathematical abilities, as well as a general fear or aversion towards the subject. This can limit individuals in their personal and professional lives, as many tasks and decisions require a basic understanding of math.

3. What factors contribute to the layman's difficulties in understanding mathematics?

There are several factors that contribute to the layman's difficulties in understanding mathematics, including the way it is taught in schools, the lack of real-life applications and examples, and the use of complex terminology and symbols that can be overwhelming for beginners.

4. How can the layman overcome these hurdles in understanding mathematics?

The key to overcoming these hurdles is through effective and engaging education. Teachers and educators can use real-life examples and applications to make math more relatable and interesting, and can also break down complex concepts into simpler terms. Additionally, self-study and practice can also help individuals improve their understanding of mathematics.

5. What is the role of scientists and mathematicians in addressing layman's misunderstanding of mathematics?

Scientists and mathematicians have a responsibility to communicate their work and findings in a way that is accessible to the general public. This includes using simple language and providing context and real-world applications for their research. They can also play a role in educating and inspiring the next generation to have a better understanding and appreciation for mathematics.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
25K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top