Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Phaedrus; betty boop; Hank Kerchief
Thank you so very much for your excellent post, Phaedrus!

It's not so much that math is a useful tool but that elegant mathematics have been found to correspond extremely closely to the micro and macro behavior of the universe. Math turns out to be powerfully descriptive. Why this should be so is a deep mystery.

Lurkers might enjoy these articles and excerpts on the subject.

The Mathematical Universe - John Barrow

So mathematics is a language with a built-in logic. But what is so striking about this language is that it seems to describe how the world works—not just sometimes, not just approximately, but invariably and with unfailing accuracy. All the fundamental sciences—physics, chemistry, and astronomy—are mathematical sciences. No phenomenon has ever been discovered in these subjects for which a mathe­matical description is not only possible but also beautifully appropriate. Yet one could still fail to be impressed. After the fact, perhaps, we can force any hand into some glove, and maybe we have chosen to pick the mathematical glove because it is the only one available. It is striking, however, that physicists so often find that some esoteric mathematical struc­ture, invented by mathematicians in the dim and distant past only for the sake of its elegance and curiosity value, is precisely what is required to make sense of new observations of the world. In fact, confidence in mathematics has grown to such an extent that one now expects (and finds) interesting mathematical structures to be deployed in nature. Scientists look no further when they have found a mathematical explanation.

There are many striking examples of the unex­pected and curious effectiveness of mathematics. In 1914, when Einstein was struggling to formulate a new description of gravity to supersede that of Newton, he wished to endow the universe with curved space and time, and to codify the laws of nature in a manner that would apply for any observ­ers no matter what their state of motion. His old student friend, the mathematician Marcel Gross­man, introduced him to a little-known branch of nineteenth-century mathematics, called tensor calcu­lus, that was tailor-made for his purposes. Upon adopting this mathematical language, how Einstein would describe laws of nature became clear and (if one is that clever) obvious.

In modern times, particle physicists have discov­ered that symmetry dictates the way elementary particles behave. Particular collections of related particles can behave in any way they choose so long as a particular abstract pattern is preserved. The laws of nature are superficially the catalog of habitual things that occur in the world while yet preserving these patterns. With every such catalog of changes one can always find an unchanging pattern, though the pattern is often subtle and rather abstract.

Intelligibility of the Universe - Gregory Chaitin

Abstract: We discuss views about whether the universe can be rationally comprehended, starting with Plato, then Leibniz, and then the views of some distinguished scientists of the previous century. Based on this, we defend the thesis that comprehension is compression, i.e., explaining many facts using few theoretical assumptions, and that a theory may be viewed as a computer program for calculating observations. This provides motivation for defining the complexity of something to be the size of the simplest theory for it, in other words, the size of the smallest program for calculating it. This is the central idea of algorithmic information theory (AIT), a field of theoretical computer science. Using the mathematical concept of program-size complexity, we exhibit irreducible mathematical facts, mathematical facts that cannot be demonstrated using any mathematical theory simpler than they are. It follows that the world of mathematical ideas has infinite complexity and is therefore not fully comprehensible, at least not in a static fashion. Whether the physical world has finite or infinite complexity remains to be seen. Current science believes that the world contains randomness, and is therefore also infinitely complex, but a deterministic universe that simulates randomness via pseudo-randomness is also a possibility, at least according to recent highly speculative work of S. Wolfram. [Written for a meeting of the German Philosophical Society, Bonn, September 2002.]

betty boop, I believe you will particularly enjoy the second article!

Hank, with regard to your assertion of Pythagoras's Constant, I would like to add that "it is not known if Pythagoras's constant is normal to any base": Normal Numbers


108 posted on 09/29/2003 8:24:43 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]


To: Alamo-Girl
Hank, with regard to your assertion of Pythagoras's Constant, I would like to add that "it is not known if Pythagoras's constant is normal to any base": Normal Numbers,p> Thank you very much for the links! Hank
109 posted on 09/29/2003 8:33:58 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

To: Alamo-Girl
Thanks so much for the links, A-G! They look fascinating!
116 posted on 09/29/2003 11:26:28 AM PDT by betty boop (God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world. -- Paul Dirac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

To: Alamo-Girl
Up to now, I know of no "naturally occuring" number which has been proved to be normal. All constructions of normal numbers that I'm familiar with (and I don't think I've missed many) are "lexical" in nature.
137 posted on 09/29/2003 10:08:25 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson