Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Phage

Interesting!

Even Roger Penrose believes mathematics is not a human constructs at all? Mathematics is thought to have it's own existence.

You really think mathematics is a human construct?

Really? Think about it a bit longer...

a reply to: DigitalResonance
Even Roger Penrose? *gasp*

You really think mathematics is a human construct?

Yes.

Really? Think about it?

I have.
Concepts like the square root of negative one are pretty hard to relate to reality.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ImaFungi

Reality is composed of what those symbols represent, which is; quantity.

You're getting the idea. You used the word "represent." Math is not reality.
What quantity is the square root of negative one?
What volume does a point occupy? What volume do 15 billion points occupy?
Just because there is a mathematical construct, it does not mean there is a corresponding reality.

I never implied that reality is a representation of all the math and geometry we can write on paper and with computers;

I was only claiming that;

Concepts of math and geometry we write on paper and with computers, exist in reality, before we discovered the concepts we write.

the concept of 1 and the concept of 2 (which forget the shape of a 2, and think of a grouping of 1 and 1), the reality of 1 and the reality of 1 and 1, exists prior to humans; and those are concepts and realities contained in humans math

a reply to: ImaFungi

I was only claiming that;

Concepts of math and geometry we write on paper and with computers, exist in reality, before we discovered the concepts we write.

No. You claimed:

Geometry is not a human construct. Geometry and math are eternal facts of the pureness of self consistent rule. The self consistent truths of geometry and math are true whether humans exist or not, and 'exist' whether they exist or not.

A point does not exist. It is a human construct. Purely.
A line does not exist. It is a human construct. Purely
A plane does not exist. It is a human construct.
The square root of negative one is a human construct. One that is not intuitive or particularly easy to grasp. It does not exist. That's why it is called imaginary.

One is not a thing. It is a concept.
Two is not a thing. It is a concept.

Here have a listen

www.quora.com...

originally posted by: DigitalResonance
Here have a listen

www.quora.com...

Why? When I can listen to ImaFungi say the same stuff? The same circular logic.

I've heard it. I don't buy it.

A point does not exist except as a concept. Start there.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DigitalResonance
Even Roger Penrose? *gasp*

You really think mathematics is a human construct?

Yes.

Really? Think about it?

I have.
Concepts like the square root of negative one are pretty hard to relate to reality.

That maybe so.. But it doesn't need to have a physical counterpart. More like mathematics is alluding to the potential of things to exist. It's subtle.

a reply to: DigitalResonance

More like mathematics is alluding to the potential of things to exist.

Yes. And just because a mathematical construct says it could exist, doesn't mean it does.
Math is not reality.

a reply to: Phage

I don't need to.. You answered yourself. You said yourself it exist as a concept.. That's it's existence. It exist as a reference frame from one place to another. It has a platonic existence.

a reply to: DigitalResonance

I don't need to.. You answered yourself. You said yourself it exist as a concept.. That's it's existence.

You can't.
A concept is not reality. Unicorns do not exist and neither do geometric points.

a reply to: Phage

Mathematics certainly has it's own existence. Something doesn't have to be physical to have an existence. That's just stupid.

a reply to: Phage

They do exist... As an idea. I know what a unicorn looks like. I have seen pictures. It just doesn't exist as a living creature in nature.
Your logic is flawed.

a reply to: DigitalResonance
I guess you missed most of the conversation.
I didn't say math doesn't exist. I said it is a tool.
I said it is not "real". You cannot show me a geometric point because such a thing does not exist except as a construct.
You cannot show me a line because such a thing does not exist except as a construct. You cannot give me the square root of negative one dollars. They do not exist. They are not "real."

a reply to: DigitalResonance

It just doesn't exist as a living creature in nature. Your logic is flawed.

No, you weren't paying attention. Unicorns are not "real" and neither is math. The world is not math. That is what this bit of conversation has been about.

a reply to: Phage


Oh I see... Sorry my mistake. I not been awake long. It's 7.25 am here.. Lol

Real... Not existence.

Sorry man

originally posted by: DigitalResonance
a reply to: Phage

Interesting!

Even Roger Penrose believes mathematics is not a human constructs at all? Mathematics is thought to have it's own existence.

You really think mathematics is a human construct?

Really? Think about it a bit longer...

Yes, mathematics is a human construct - take complex numbers for example: "A complex number is a number that can be expressed in the form a + bi, where a and b are real numbers and i is the imaginary unit, that satisfies the equation x2 = −1, that is, i2 = −1. In this expression, a is the real part and b is the imaginary part of the complex number."
en.wikipedia.org...

Look up the history of complex numbers - the concept was invented by a person to solve problems primarily in engineering.

Mathematics is a tool invented by man when he/she discovered that they needed some way of simple counting which then led to more complex calculations.

Whether our mathematics is ubiquitous throughout the universe is more of a philosophical question.

originally posted by: darkorange
Hi Arbitrageur

Thanks for your thoughts. If any one, it's you who can suggest educated guess at what this all might be?
I mean duality debate. Do you have little own take on this?

I don't know the correct interpretation of QM any more than anybody else. I do find it helpful to visualize photons as "wave packets", even though I realize that visualization model is lacking in some respects. Apparently whoever made the hyperphysics website likes that visualization also because they used it quite a bit, for example

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


Here's another explanation of the wave packet but I forgot the source, it's in my uploaded images:


This shows a quantized packet of waves, and doesn't look anything like a ball bouncing up and down to me. However this representation has some accuracy problems too as I said earlier, but in spite of that I still find it useful.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
No, the only meaning of the word particle is; Ball like.

If a photon is not; Ball like

It is like, not like, a particle.

originally posted by: Bedlam
It like can't be a ball, because it has no extent. It's a point.

I agree photons aren't like balls, but I can't think of them as points either. If I thought of them as points I'd think of those points leaking out of the ~1mm wide holes in my microwave oven door, and not much microwave radiation leaks out.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Whether our mathematics is ubiquitous throughout the universe is more of a philosophical question.

I've often wondered if the messages we included on the Voyager spacecraft can actually be interpreted by aliens. I don't think the odds of that are too good but at least we tried.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


Here's another explanation of the wave packet but I forgot the source, it's in my uploaded images:

This shows a quantized packet of waves, and doesn't look anything like a ball bouncing up and down to me. However this representation has some accuracy problems too as I said earlier, but in spite of that I still find it useful.

In that image what do the black lines represent?

Before the red lines are waving in that manner, in what manner is the red line existing?

a reply to: ImaFungi
The image answers your question about what the red and black lines represent.

If the photon was emitted via black-body radiation for example, then prior to the energy being emitted as a photon, the object emitting it had the energy stored as thermal energy. Light coming from the sun follows the ideal black-body curve pretty closely, but not perfectly. The sun is converting mass into energy through fusion but we don't get to see the photons from that process because it happens in the sun's interior. The sun's interior absorbs those photons from the fusion reaction, and emits different photons closer to the surface, mostly through black-body radiation (not counting special events like flares or CMEs).

originally posted by: Phage


A point does not exist. It is a human construct. Purely.
A line does not exist. It is a human construct. Purely
A plane does not exist. It is a human construct.
The square root of negative one is a human construct. One that is not intuitive or particularly easy to grasp. It does not exist. That's why it is called imaginary.

One is not a thing. It is a concept.
Two is not a thing. It is a concept.

There is a difference I suppose between basic simple fundamental math, or the symbolizing of quantity, and the way in which those quantity relate in a graphing space;

And the nearly infinite coded symbolic rules of how to short cut manipulate relationships between quantity by using symbolized mechanisms and functions.

When I said that math exists eternally, I meant that the concept of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 1+1 = 1 and 1. 1+1+1 = 1 and 1 and 1.

Are eternal truths, and exist as truth, before humans wrote it.

About the geometry; it is a difficult situation;

Because the entire attempt is to exclaim about something that is entirely most purely absolutely perfect, so perfect in its existence that it can never possibly exist; because that which exists must be made of some thing, and there can never be some thing that is physically perfect enough to embody the required perfections to equal the attempt to define the fundamental rules and essences of geometry by exclaiming that the rules are infinitely perfect.

An exact sphere, can only ever have exact definitions; A sphere is an exact and perfect sphere, or not a sphere. A circle is an exact and perfect circle, or it cannot be considered a circle.

Everything in reality can only approach to varying percentages of closeness to perfection. The perfection seems to be in the timelessness, and the substance-less; even though time and substance is required for minds to exist that then realize that there exist perfect rules for geometry which can never be accomplished in any reality.

Now the triangle is an interesting one, the square too I suppose, well now that I am thinking about it, what is stopping a triangle drawn on paper from being considered a triangle; its lack of imperfection is that the lines are drawn 2d, and made of atoms which draw out of the lines a bit, so therefore it is not a perfect triangle therefore it is not a triangle?

I think the point is, how geometry timelessly exists without needing to exist, is that any time in eternal history, if an intelligence arises and is capable enough to act and potentially store memory of sense data and its ability to act, ultimately it if connects 3 lines to make 3 interior angles it will ultimately be doing the same action that must be done at any time in eternal history, to make this shape, called triangle.

The unapproachable perfection will always be an unapproachable perfection,

But the unapproachable perfection of sphere, is different in its ways from pyramid;

So the knowledge, is that it is known, that that object which appears closer to the perfection of a sphere, than a pyramid;

is closer to the embodiment of that eternal perfect rule, which is unattainable, but knowable as perfect abstract rule, and substantially unattainable.

Unless...

Fundamental matter, field, quanta, energy, condensate, plasma, soup, is so partless that it could in theory have perfect edges.

This comes down to, how does or can substance, exist over some amount of time and space, and be perfectly flat