Is ‘basic’ physics just philosophy? Or at least just mathematics? If it is, then surely all of physics is.
I read an interesting article the other day (HERE) from The New Yorker about the many levels of explanation or truth in physics. Not only are ‘fundamental’ phenomena explainable from various distinct perspectives, some of these perspectives, but only some, will suggest new physics.
It’s as if apprehending such perspectives causes us to transcend current understanding of the laws of physics, and connect mathematically (at least) to a larger, and up to that point unknown universe (small ‘u’). All such universes would be “mathematically perfect” but I presume they are not all identical. How the Universe might tie-in is also discussed a bit. If not the ‘ultimate free lunch’, maybe the ultimate emergent phenomenon?
The author frames all this as the discovery of new questions (and not the discovery of new answers). I think the discovery of new possibilities captures it better, recognizing that while all things may be possible, not all may exist in all universes. Then again, I have little confidence that I am in a position to capture anything in such airy spaces.
It seems that, fundamentally, the author is saying that physics is philosophy, or physics is mathematics (I’m still not sure which, and I’m not even sure if they’re different). Regardless, if either one, or even in-between, I guess it must always have been that way. And that would come to me as a bit of a surprise.
Interesting link (and person, that Dr. Woit). Thanks, I’ll look forward to learning more. In the meantime, it was reassuring for me to read, “I’m completely sympathetic with Nima2’s motivation and quest”.
The statement in the article that scientists aren’t in the business of answering questions but of turning up ever-more questions to answer is nothing new. Scientists have been saying similar things since long before I was born.
That the deepest questions in science are also the hardest to answer and therefore raise the most questions along the way is not terribly surprising, either. Nor is this realization limited to physics. We’ve had many threads about Eugene Wigner’s paper “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences” and there is also an expansion of the saying by Russian mathematician Israel Gelfand, “There is only one thing which is more unreasonable than the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in physics, and this is the unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics in biology.”
Modern physics theory is mostly advanced math, and math is not only effective but surprisingly protean. Algebra and geometry are dual: they are exactly the same thing expressed in different terms. Just as Arkani-Hamed says about physics, some problems naturally work better under one rather than the other, and insights about deeper problems naturally come from one rather than the other. Mathematics is full of duals. Many of the recent advances in conquering long unsolved problems are the consequence of realizing that duals allow for easier pathways of attack.
How this is a philosophy escapes me. It strikes me more of an issue of human symbolic thinking. The author of the New Yorker article uses different languages as a metaphor. I would extend that to refer to the whole problem as one of translation. All ideas can be expressed in all languages, but some may allow for more precision or clarity than others and translating directly from language to language is fraught is difficulty. This is interesting but the differences develop from usage over time rather than innate rules. Maybe Arkani-Hamed is saying the same thing in a different way.
Exapno said: “Algebra and geometry are dual: they are exactly the same thing expressed in different terms”. Sounds like the beginnings of a program.
I guess I am wondering, if not assuming, that there are similar relationships - duals - between mathematical knowledge, logic, and epistemology in general; maybe even with human symbolic thinking and neural networks.
Is mathematics the dual of the human brain’s logical structure? Is consciousness the universe?
Physics is not philosophy. Physics tell us “what” and philosophy tries to answer “why.” Physics is expressed using mathematics, but what you refer to as basic physics cannot be derived by pure thought or just math.
There is not the slightest evidence that the human brain uses mathematics in the way we define it by its formal structure. Same for formal logic.
In fact, one of the greats, von Neumann I think, was working on a book to show that the way the brain computed problems (will an accelerating car hit me before I get across the street, something we manage instinctively but requires calculus that 99.999% of the population has no idea of) used a totally different mathematics but he died before he could complete it. Nobody has picked up on this, so it likely hasn’t been proved one way or the other.
Personally, I think you’re grasping for meaning and certainty where there is none.
You are anthropomorphizing the universe, or at least begging the question that it is alive.
The internet is not conscious, but it facilitated the conversation.
Two people talking in a room use air to speak with each other. Is the oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc. holistically conscious, or is each element individually conscious?
You’re getting into hindu cosmology and panentheististic territory, essentially theological concepts that can’t be proven to be true.
This is one thing no one has picked up on, but I think this is a (common) misconception.
The misconception is that there is a hierarchy of knowledge and what is true for the root is true for the whole. And also if we’re wrong or fuzzy about the root the whole thing could come down like a jenga tower.
But it doesn’t really work like that. Models work at a particular level of abstraction and are independently verified. Though they have axioms those axioms do not need to reference other models.
So no it doesn’t follow that even if “basic” physics is philosophy then all physics is.
The Biologists look a the world and say “Life is wonderful and diverse and needs to be studied / understood”
The Chemists chuckle to themselves and say “Yes, but biology, is just a specialized branch of chemistry…”
And the Physicists tut and click their tongues and say “Well, maybe, but chemistry is really just applied physics…”
And the Mathematicians slowly shake their heads and say “Good luck on doing anything without Math”
Drilling down is easy, but once down at that level, applying that information upward is, if not impossible, almost useless. Other than Arithmetic (1 Oxygen mixes with 2 Hydrogens to make 1 water) Chemistry does not learn much from Math. And Biology can only really use statistical models, but there will never be an equation whose answer is ‘cheetah’ or ‘hive mind’…
