Ruth & Rindler (General)

by dhw, Saturday, August 10, 2013, 08:53 (4122 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: Tegmark and Hellerman are physicists who consider maths to be integral to the nature of the universe, and Butterworth and Nunez as cognitive scientists see it as part of the human tendency to impose patterns on Nature. -DAVID: Humans cannot impose patterns if they do not already exist to be discovered. The argument is a lot of philosophic twaddle.-Dhw: All our perceptions, ideas, theories, and decisions are based on forming patterns. We cannot observe the whole of anything ... but just, in your terms "bits and pieces". And our impression of the whole is the pattern we impose on those bits and pieces. [...]-DAVID: You have neatly shifted the argument about patterns. I was pointing out mathematical patterns which the scientists use to understand nature. These work out solidly. Philosophic patterns are built on reasonble inferences, but may contain unexpected quicksand. Don't conflate solid maths with twaddle.-Your belief that mathematical patterns exist independently of humans is what the whole debate is about! Here is the introduction to the discussion:-THE RECENT DISCOVERY OF THE HIGGS BOSON PARTICLE, which was predicted by mathematical formulas, shows the power of math to describe and predict the world around us--from the helical structure of DNA and the spirals of galaxies, to how rapidly epidemics spread and our universe is expanding. But is that because everything in our world is inherently mathematical and follows precise rules? Or do we tend to see mathematical patterns everywhere because of the way our brains embroider an orderly overlay over what we experience?-The origins of math has become a hot topic of debate as neuroscientists continue to uncover mathematical abilities we seem to be born with, and have pinpointed regions in the brain responsible for mathematical thinking. Other scientists are finding that certain math capabilities vary by culture and depend on how we interact with the world. Both types of findings suggest math is a human construct rather than a phenomenon that determines how the cosmos is constructed.-It's a hot topic. And no-one knows the answer. Your point about "solid" patterns is dealt with by both sceptics:-NUNEZ: We humans are pretty good at trying to make sense of things and excel at developing new tools for such purposes. You are giving examples for cases in which mathematics does work apparently in nature. But, how about all those cases for which it doesn't, including for making precise weather predictions? The saga of mathematics in science has been to invent new mathematical tools that help make testable predictions and to keep those that work, while discarding those that aren't useful. But there are tons of other things in pure mathematics that aren't testable or useful in empirical science proper.-BUTTERWORTH: Numbers are not necessarily a property of the universe, but rather a very powerful way of describing some aspects of the universe. -Of course it is essential to your faith in a creator God that the universe should be the product of his mathematical mind. However, the above quotes, and the fact that there are so many atheist or agnostic physicists (including Peter Higgs himself), should perhaps sound a warning. By all means believe that your mathematical pattern exists, but do not "twaddle" those experts in the field who believe maths to be just one more instance of "the way our brains embroider an orderly overlay over what we experience". He who twaddles others' beliefs doth himself deserve a twaddling. (Old Agnostic Proverb)