Marc, please, allow me to write in plain language - not using those fancy words of these threads. Some time ago when the discussion was in commonsensically more understandable vocabulary, I questioned something similar to Günther, as pertaining to "numbers" - the alleged generators of 'everything' (physical, quality, ideation, process, you name it). As Bruno then said: the positive integers do that - if applied in sufficiently long expressions. (please, Bruno, correct this to a bottom-low simplification) - I did not follow that and was promised some more explanatory text in "not so technical" language. The discussion over the past some weeks is even "more technical" for me. Is not the distinction relevant what I hold, that there are two kinds of 'number'-usage: the (pure, theoretical Math and the in sciences - (quantity related) - "applied math" - that uses the formalism (the results, even logics) of 'Math' to exercise 'math'? (Cap vs lower m)
Geometry seems to be in between(????) and symmetry can be both, I think. I am no physicist AND no mathematician, (not even a logician), so I pretend to keep an objective eye on things in which I am not prejudiced by knowledge. (<G>). John M On Nov 27, 2007 11:40 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 28, 1:18 am, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Dear Marc, > > > > > Physics deals with symmetries, forces and fields. > > > Mathematics deals with data types, relations and sets/categories. > > > > I'm no physicist, so please correct me but IMHO: > > > > Symmetries = relations > > Forces - could they not be seen as certain invariances, thus also > > relating to symmetries? > > > > Fields - the aggregate of forces on all spacetime "points" - do not see > > why this should not be mathematical relation? > > > > > The mathemtical entities are informational. The physical properties > > > are geometric. Geometric properties cannot be derived from > > > informational properties. > > > > Why not? Do you have a counterexample? > > > > Regards, > > Günther > > > > Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt that all physical things can be > *described* by mathematics. But this alone does not establish that > physical things *are* mathematical. As I understand it, for the > examples you've given, what happens is that based on emprical > observation, certain primatives of geometry and symmetry are *attached > to* (connected with) mathematical relations, numbers etc which > successfully *describe/predict* these physical properties. But it > does not follow from this, that the mathematical relations/numbers > *are* the geometric properties/symmetrics. > > In order to show that the physical properties *are* the mathematical > properties (and not just described by or connected to the physical > properties), it has to be shown how geometric/physical properties > emerge from/are logically derived from sets/categories/numbers alone. > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
