I don’t think he is saying that. You are starting with a task, a use of a tool, then trying to make that an analogy to math as a tool. That’s not what math is. There are laws of the universe, there is no better name I can think of. They are consistent throuhgout time and space. That is a fundamental principle of science. It might be wrong, but explain to me how it’s wrong before moving on to discuss math.
Math describes those forces and movements of nature. If a math thing; theory, formula, function, whatever, doesn’t describe nature, then it’s not valid math. It can also describe economics since that is part of Nature.
Write4u - you took my analogy of the hammer wrong. Has nothing to do with energy, etc. Maybe try this: If I claim “thing A” can only be used to perform “action A” because there’s a special relationship between thing A and action A (or plural, thingsA/actionsA), and you proceed to use “thing A” to perform “action B” then you’ve proven that my claim about “thing A having a special relationship to action A, and cannot be used to perform any other action besides A”, you’ve proven my claim wrong.
That’s what some physicists claim for the math they use to describe/make predictions for the universe. I’m saying since the same math can be applied to human/random/free-will based activities such as economics, data science, governance, etc. then that math does NOT have a special relationship with the physical world. It’s just a man-made tool to help describe/predict things.
lausten - Yes math describes those things, and it can be used to describe various things in economics because it’s just a tool, not tied to the universe, not tied to economics, etc. Just a tool made up by smart people. Other smart people in other civilizations may come up with an entirely different way/tool to do the same thing, might even be something we don’t even recognize as math, symbolic language, etc. (that was my point when I mentioned the movie Arrival).
I guess the most generic way to summarize would be this: there are those who mistake the map for the territory.
That the territory is amenable to map making, description by maps, etc is great. But don’t think the map you make IS the territory. I can’t remember which physicist said that, but here’s a good article about the idea: Mistaking the map for the territory - RationalWiki
The map is a symbolic representation of the territory and if you speak the language you will be able to navigate the territory just fine.
For thinking organisms to be able to communicate , they require a symbolic language, which can range from pure Chemical interactions (quorum sensing) to Shakespeare (poetry).
Everything humans say or do are "mapped interpretation " of reality.
Great, now you get what I mean. The last step is that there are those in physics who don’t realize what they’re doing is “working the map”. They think what they’re doing is working the actual territory.
To continue the analogy a little (and this is an analogy, don’t get hung up by coordinate-talk), I’m saying there are physicists who treat the math they do AS IF they are geographers who think the geographic coordinate system they use implies there are literally latitude and longitude marks on the earth. If there were such geographers, I’d say they’re making the same mistake these physicists do when doing physics.
And just to drive the point home, when we’re talking about geography, it’s very easy for us to say, well that’s silly, obviously there aren’t actual lat and long lines on the earth.
But in physics it’s not that way at all. The math is so complex, and the “looking at the territory” is so complex and removed from what’s actually going on, that it’s hard for even the best of them to come to this conclusion.
And there are legitimate physicists who do not make this mistake.
[quote=“cuthbertj, post:44, topic:7723”]
Great, now you get what I mean. The last step is that there are those in physics who don’t realize what they’re doing is “working the map”. They think what they’re doing is working the actual territory.
That may be a little hasty. Applied maths and physic is working the territory based on the map. It is how we produced the Higgs boson.
Again that may be overstated a little. The maths are not individually complex, it is the number of calculations of “inputs” that must be integrated that create the complexity.
Tegmark proposes that a mathematical universe requires only some 23 relational values and a handful of equations (constants) to decypher all universal processes.
The difficulty is in identifying the causal values involved .
A simple example may be found in the calculation of airspeed vs ground speed. It is but a simple calculation to understand the differential equation.
The calculations become more complex when performed from several different POVs and relativity kicks in.
Like landing a Rover on Mars. Based on the simple mathematical principle of “falling bodies”. The variable maths involved in making a “controlled” landing is complex.
Now transfer these possible scenarios to migrating birds that use the earth’s magnetic fields for navigation and must account for variables without a map.
They map their flightplan “by the seat of their pants”.
A Venus Flytrap uses hydraulics to catch prey. Some insects use airbubbles to build underwater nests. They’re submariners!
All of these abilities are mental and physical-mathematical calculations.
All these mechanics are expressions of applied maths and physics. It’s incredible what evolution has done for life to adapt to specific environments.
These analogies you are using are good. They help me understand where you are coming from and where we might depart. One thing is the random/free-will applications. Since I see the physics as underlying how we evolved and thus how we behave, I don’t think I have free-will. I have an illusion of free-will, so it seems like I should be able to break out of whatever a formula might predict. The problem isn’t that there aren’t principles guiding what I’ll do next, the problem is, our math is not sophisticated enough to make the prediction. It might never be, according to chaos theory, a formula doesn’t tell us what the next result will be, but a pattern emerges. I’m not explaining it as well as someone better at the math could.
So, the territory for the map fallacy doesn’t apply, because we aren’t mistaking the territory of the universe for the tool of the map maker. I’m not talking about a map at all, but the universe, and the tools that made it. We don’t make the tools, and we are just barely beginning to understand them. We have known for a while that gravitational attraction made the planets rotate around stars. Now we’re starting to think gravity isn’t a thing, as much it is a result of other things. We could only know that if all the things behave in a way that was predictable and describable and testable.
I like the idea of the different tools in another civilization, but, as you say, it would almost have to be a whole ‘nother planet, because it took us thousands of years to develop what we have. There’s that guy from India, “the boy who knew infinity”, who took a couple Calculus classes but didn’t have teachers around him. He developed his own symbols and discovered/created new Calculus. His terminology is still used in advanced textbooks, because they explain it in a way that is somehow better. That says to me that we have a long way to go in understanding these fundamental forces.
(Sorry for the long post. I’m getting caught up after some vacation time, followed by chore time. Not that this forum is work, it’s more like leisure time, as opposed to being somewhere and focusing on something specific.)
Is it possible that what we call Free Will is choice between two or more superimposed solutions to a problem?
According to ORCH OR the brain functions are at quantum scale and if the brain is in fact using referential data from memory when allowing for various solutions to a problem, perhaps the brain can influence the quantum mechanics of thought and give weight to one solution over another.
After all, the choice of “fight or flight” instinct has been with us for a long time and that seems like a clear example of a superimposed “solutions” to a problem.
That may be a little hasty. Applied maths and physic is working the territory based on the map. It is how we produced the Higgs boson.
Well that in itself is a little iffy. The applied folks certainly created incredible technology. And the Higgs boson appears to be a real thing. But the math used is incredibly complex and I’m not sure that what they did isn’t just “find” results that they were able to work into another part of the map only. But I admit, I’m unqualified to prove that out. The funny thing too is, it’s possible to find correct results with wrong math, or rather not quite right math. Newtonian math works to a point even though it’s been supplanted by better math.
I AM speaking of the theoretical folks. Sabine Hossenfelder has written about how it’s become sort of a ridiculous game where particle physicists are basically throwing “math” at the wall and seeing if anything sticks, to get grants, etc. in search of all kinds of particles. And if I understand her correctly, they’re basically playing games with the math in doing this. Check out her book Lost In Math.
This is where AI is going to be invaluable. AI will excel in theoretical science when given the basic parameters and available knowledge.
Example; the new Covid vaccinations take but a few days to chemically code. This used to take months when performed by humans. The testing still takes time, but the new AI vaccination need no “tweaking” and save months to get to the population.
The speed of AI “thinking” and processing massive amounts of data is going to speed up the evolution of so many things that require initial theoretical formulations.
