Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2018
Reality cannot be explained by mathematics
DRAFT
Lesson 2.9: Reality cannot be explained by mathematics.
Because: It is the opinion of Max Tegmark, a well-known physicist and cosmologist, that all mathematical structures are real.
But let's take a look at the concept of mathematical structure. For example, a circle is a simply defined mathematical structure: It is the totality of all points with the same distance to the centre. Now let's assume that one of these points changes its distance. Then there is no more a circle. The famous Greek philosopher Plato would perhaps say that there is no more a "perfect" circle.
But how can one say what a perfect structure is!?
Certainly, the result with the changed point is a mathematical structure too. One could even say that it is more interesting than and not as boring as a simple circle. So now: which one is more perfect?
I would simply name the second structure "one-point-circle". There could also be "two-points-circles" (which differ with two points from a circle), "3-points-circles" and so on. I would not dare to claim that these structures are less perfect than a circle.
Let us now transfer these insights to the example of mathematical structures, which have the same past as our universe. Let's do again a simple experiment like dropping a stone. Then there is an infinite number of mathematical structures, in which the experiment results (outcomes) in a different manner than expected, for any mathematical structure, in which the experiment outcomes (results) as expected. Therefore it is most unlikely to experience the expected falling of the dropped stone.
But I did the experiment - and the stone fell as expected!
Therefore: Although an extremely little risk remains that the following conclusion is wrong, it is reasonable to assume that the (totality of) reality doesn't include all mathematical structures (in equal numbers).
So the famous question of the famous Stephen Hawking remains open: "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" But only for the moment, for I think that I have a good principal answer to this question.
It is not only, that another set of rules and equations could have become and be real. From a strictly logical perspective (point of view), EVERY logically possible reality could be the master plan, pattern or model of the actual reality.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
Lesson 2.9: Reality cannot be explained by mathematics.
Because: It is the opinion of Max Tegmark, a well-known physicist and cosmologist, that all mathematical structures are real.
But let's take a look at the concept of mathematical structure. For example, a circle is a simply defined mathematical structure: It is the totality of all points with the same distance to the centre. Now let's assume that one of these points changes its distance. Then there is no more a circle. The famous Greek philosopher Plato would perhaps say that there is no more a "perfect" circle.
But how can one say what a perfect structure is!?
Certainly, the result with the changed point is a mathematical structure too. One could even say that it is more interesting than and not as boring as a simple circle. So now: which one is more perfect?
I would simply name the second structure "one-point-circle". There could also be "two-points-circles" (which differ with two points from a circle), "3-points-circles" and so on. I would not dare to claim that these structures are less perfect than a circle.
Let us now transfer these insights to the example of mathematical structures, which have the same past as our universe. Let's do again a simple experiment like dropping a stone. Then there is an infinite number of mathematical structures, in which the experiment results (outcomes) in a different manner than expected, for any mathematical structure, in which the experiment outcomes (results) as expected. Therefore it is most unlikely to experience the expected falling of the dropped stone.
But I did the experiment - and the stone fell as expected!
Therefore: Although an extremely little risk remains that the following conclusion is wrong, it is reasonable to assume that the (totality of) reality doesn't include all mathematical structures (in equal numbers).
So the famous question of the famous Stephen Hawking remains open: "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" But only for the moment, for I think that I have a good principal answer to this question.
It is not only, that another set of rules and equations could have become and be real. From a strictly logical perspective (point of view), EVERY logically possible reality could be the master plan, pattern or model of the actual reality.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
#philosophy #science #religion #worldview
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)