Replies

Thank you for your posts, but, er, I seem to be having some difficulty in communicating with you.

On one post you assert that cosmology is speculative and on a previous post that I should not accept cosmology as speculative. In actuality, my post 237 explores the host of physical cosmologies and how the notion of an infinite past has been debunked by observations in astronomy and in math.

Mathematics is all about logic. The most sure statements we can make about physical reality are mathematical. The universe is intelligible because it is mathematical. The point raised by Eugene Wigner (and affirmed by Cumrun Vafa) is there is no reason why mathematics should be so effective wrt physics.

For Lurkers: A good meditation on the unreasonable effectiveness of math includes Mandelbrot sets, mirror images and dualities which suggest that two different physical systems with completely different looking properties can nevertheless be isomorphic if one considers quantum geometry on either side. Other examples include mirror symmetries (Calabi-Yau manifolds) and S-dualities.

Max Tegmark suggests that the symmetry holds so completely that this physical reality actually consists of mathematical structures which exist beyond space and time. Another way to look at it is this: from the view within 4D space/time a particle may appear to be on a fixed trajectory which is actually a line with a beginning and an end from the view beyond space/time. Likewise two particles orbiting would appear to be two lines in a double helix. You and I and every physical existent would correspond to just such a mathematical structure.

And concerning my analysis of the objections to evolution theory, please notice that my objection is to unnecessary presuppositions (the second point) not to the quantization of continuums (the first point). Indeed, without such quantizations we would not have telecommunications, computers and such – because they all rely on analog to digital conversion (quantizations). Those who consider quantizations of continuums to be a logical fallacy are on the “evolution” side of the debate on this forum.

For evidence of biology seeing itself as autonomous, please refer to Ernst Mayr’s discussion of “what is science?” and this by H.H. Pattee: The physics of symbols: Bridging the epistemic cut

I do find physics and mathematics to be epistemologically pure. All presuppositions made in those two disciplines are stated as axioms and postulates related to the investigation at hand.

In those disciplines, no theory is treated as Holy writ. If the Higgs field/boson is not found or created, the standard model will be replaced without a whimper because the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If the answer is undecideable – then undecideability is the answer – as in wave/particle duality.

Thank you for your posts, but, er, I seem to be having some difficulty in communicating with you.

We don't speak the same language; I am an empiricist, and you seem to be some sort of platonist.

On one post you assert that cosmology is speculative

Cosmology can be done within the confines of this universe using the scientific method: gathering evidence, forming hypotheses, testing them, etc. "Cosmology" beyond our universe is sheer speculation. Perhaps science will find a way to overcome this limitation at some point in the future, but there is no way at this time to test hypotheses about what is outside of our own spacetime.

The most sure statements we can make about physical reality are mathematical.

I disagree. Mathematics can offer avenues of research, and suggest hypotheses, but the rubber meets the road, so to speak, when hypotheses are tested against reality. Whether it is in the lab or in the field, it is empiricism which tells us whether or not our mathematical models conform to objective reality. The weakness of Greek natural philosophy is that it did not generally test the results of its logical forays. Logic alone doesn't get results; empiricism is the reality check.

The universe is intelligible because it is mathematical. The point raised by Eugene Wigner (and affirmed by Cumrun Vafa) is there is no reason why mathematics should be so effective wrt physics.

Conversely, one could say that our mathematics were formulated precisely to be effective in modeling the universe.

All presuppositions made in those two disciplines are stated as axioms and postulates related to the investigation at hand.

Mathematics, sure. But I don't see physics operating that way.

In those disciplines, no theory is treated as Holy writ.

And, in biology, the theory of evolution would likewise be replaced with a better model if it were falsified. You seem to be saying that the very success of evolution as a theory is a strike against it.