If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Media Partner: Scientific American

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 4/8/15 at 15:47pm UTC, wrote Dear Jairo, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was...

**Jairo da Silva**: *on* 3/23/15 at 10:01am UTC, wrote Thanks, Alan. Please read my reply below.

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 3/17/15 at 15:30pm UTC, wrote Dear Professor da Silva, FQXi.org has labeled my work “OBNOXIOUS...

**Jairo da Silva**: *on* 3/16/15 at 17:46pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe. Thanks for your comments. You ask me what physical reality is....

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 3/16/15 at 15:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Professor da Silva, You wrote: “Physical reality, in short, is a...

**Jairo da Silva**: *on* 3/16/15 at 3:18am UTC, wrote Dear Alan. Thank you very much for your comments. I must first call your...

**Alan Kadin**: *on* 3/14/15 at 15:12pm UTC, wrote Dear Prof. da Silva: Your essay makes a coherent and cogent argument that...

**Jairo da Silva**: *on* 3/13/15 at 18:14pm UTC, wrote I´d like to highlight the points I believe worth noticing in my paper. 1)...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Steve Dufourny**: "I have studied several papers about the renormalization of conformal..."
*in* 16th Marcel Grossmann...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Yang Mills squared and quadrupoles, For this quantum gravitation..."
*in* 16th Marcel Grossmann...

**Steve Dufourny**: "One of the important solution that I propose for the UN is ecological and..."
*in* Global Collaboration

**Amrit Ladhani **: "My preprint "The Beginning to the End of the Universe and Eternal..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Steve Dufourny**: "It could be very relevant if FQXi make a kind of essay contest for this..."
*in* Global Collaboration

**Steve Dufourny**: "I read my posts from the past on FQXi, my english which is not of course..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Ronnie Wassler**: "DNA is the origin of the universe. We have 3 distinct brains, Left..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Michael Wade**: "history dissertation help"
*in* Causal Discovery in the...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Quanthoven's Fifth**

A quantum computer composes chart-topping music, programmed by physicists striving to understand consciousness.

**The Math of Consciousness: Q&A with Kobi Kremnitzer**

A meditating mathematician is developing a theory of conscious experience to help understand the boundary between the quantum and classical world.

**Can We Feel What It’s Like to Be Quantum?**

Underground experiments in the heart of the Italian mountains are testing the links between consciousness and collapse theories of quantum physics.

**The Thermodynamic Limits of Intelligence: Q&A with David Wolpert**

Calculating the energy needed to acquire and compute information could help explain the (in)efficiency of human brains and guide the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

**Gambling Against the Second Law**

Using precision thermometry to make mini heat engines, that might, momentarily, bust through the thermodynamic limit.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

A quantum computer composes chart-topping music, programmed by physicists striving to understand consciousness.

A meditating mathematician is developing a theory of conscious experience to help understand the boundary between the quantum and classical world.

Underground experiments in the heart of the Italian mountains are testing the links between consciousness and collapse theories of quantum physics.

Calculating the energy needed to acquire and compute information could help explain the (in)efficiency of human brains and guide the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

Using precision thermometry to make mini heat engines, that might, momentarily, bust through the thermodynamic limit.

FQXi FORUM

August 11, 2022

CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]

TOPIC: Mathematics, the Oracle of Physics by Jairo Jose da Silva [refresh]

TOPIC: Mathematics, the Oracle of Physics by Jairo Jose da Silva [refresh]

Mathematics studies abstract patterns, either instantiated in structured system of things given to perception or in imagination, or freely invented and characterized axiomatically. The method of modern physics, which defines it, consists in studying the reality man perceives by means of abstract patterns extracted from it and idealized as mathematical patterns, which, then, can be freely extended. In this way, modern physics invites mathematics in. By an elaborate interplay between symbolic mathematics and creative semantics of mathematical systems, or by purely formal analogies between the mathematical surrogate science substitutes for perceptual reality and no matter which mathematical domain, mathematics manages to play a fundamental role in scientific heuristics. The mystery of the applicability of mathematics in empirical science is a consequence of the belief that physical and mathematical realities are two completely isolated and self-sufficient domains which can only communicate by mysterious means. Here, I strive to show that this belief is false.

Professor of Mathematics, Department of Mathematics, University of the State of São Paulo at Rio Claro, SP, BRAZIL. Member of the Centre for Logic, Epistemology and the History of Science (CLE), University of Campinas, Campinas, BRAZIL. Member of the Institute of Philosophy of the University of Lisbon, Portugal. Researcher of the National Council for Scientific Development (CNPq), Ministry of Science and Technology, BRAZIL. Chief-editor of Cahiers of History and Philosophy of Science, published by CLE.

I´d like to highlight the points I believe worth noticing in my paper. 1) I work with three different concepts of reality, sensorial, perceptual and physical; each level admits a different amount of mathematization, from the most basic to the most elaborate (perception may have a topological structure, but not a metrical one; physical reality, on the other hand, can be given a metrical structure proper). 2) Physical reality is a mathematical construct, its process of constitution takes perceptual reality and delivers physical reality after a considerable amount of "cutting" (abstraction), "polishing" (idealization) and "refurnishing" (substitution of percepts by mathematical representatives); physical reality is not simply a "representation" of perceptual reality. 3) Only physical reality, as the mathematical realm it is, admits full-blown mathematical treatment; the theories of mathematical physics are mathematical theories of the mathematical domain physical reality is. 3) the applicability of mathematics in physics, then, is only an instance of the applicability of mathematics in mathematics, with all its advantages. 4) The mathematical treatment of physical reality may disclose noteworthy formal regularities that can (but need not!) be given material content in perceptual reality; this accounts for the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics in physics.

Dear Prof. da Silva:

Your essay makes a coherent and cogent argument that much of both science and math are human constructions, rather than independent external entities, and it is this human connection that accounts for the usefulness of math in physics. I’m sure you realize that this is heresy to the prevailing scientific pseudo-religion, in which both science and math provide, in...

view entire post

Your essay makes a coherent and cogent argument that much of both science and math are human constructions, rather than independent external entities, and it is this human connection that accounts for the usefulness of math in physics. I’m sure you realize that this is heresy to the prevailing scientific pseudo-religion, in which both science and math provide, in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan. Thank you very much for your comments. I must first call your atention to a misinterpretation of my paper that I was afraid would be a common one, namely, that I take a somewhat "post-modern" point of view. It is true that I claim that mathematics is to a large extent an invention, since we can freely create mathematical patterns by explicitly stating their formal properties axiomatically. But mathematics can also be created by paying attention to patterns that we find in our experience of reality. The question whether mathematics is discovered or created has a trivial answer: both. Our colour experience, for example, has an obvious topological structure, and anyone could in principle have invented topology by paying enough attention to this particular structure. On the other hand, the arithmetic of quaternions is obviously invented. Now, the real question is how it is possibly that mathematics, be it invented or discovered, can be used in the empirical sciences. Some mathematics -for instance, topology - could be applied directly to perception but metrical geometry cannot. How come then that it is? Answer: because it is not to perception that we apply metrical geometry, but to an idealization of perception. In few words, in general our perception of reality can be mathematically treated because we substitute it by a mathematical surrogate. Once this surrogate is available we can use whatever mathematical instruments available to investigate it. It is mathematics as usual, like using heavy analytical machinary to investigate the numerical realm. There is nothing earth-shaking in anything that I said. The problem is that most philosophers in the Anglo-American analytical tradition are sworn empiricists and believe religiously that the reality investigated in physics is what it is independently of idealizations and other interventions that make it amenable to mathematical treatment. This where the "unreasonable effectiveness" nonsense begins.

Dear Professor da Silva,

You wrote: “Physical reality, in short, is a scientific construct.” What is physical reality in long?

This is my single unified theorem of how the real Universe is occurring: Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of abstract NOTHING. Proof exists that...

view entire post

You wrote: “Physical reality, in short, is a scientific construct.” What is physical reality in long?

This is my single unified theorem of how the real Universe is occurring: Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of abstract NOTHING. Proof exists that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joe. Thanks for your comments. You ask me what physical reality is. Well, I use this term in a somewhat tecnical sense. What is "out there" is "out there" and it is at best a limit concept. Science is concerned only with what we perceive or can in principle perceive. But what we perceive is what is out there filtered through our sensorial and percentual systems (which, by the way, are not the same thing). This is what I called percentual reality. Perceptual reality has some structure, of course, and so can already be aproached mathematically, since mathematics is the science of structures. But the structure of percentual reality is already, to some extent, a contribution of percentual filtering systems. To ask what is "out there" but cannot be perceived is not a well-posed question, we do not even know what it means! Now, in order for mathematics to be really effective, science substitutes perceptual reality by a mathematical surrogate that, as I said in the paper, contains simultaneously more and less than what perception provides or can in principle provide. This is what I call physical reality. Not what is "out there", not even what we can perceive as being out there, but a mere formal, symbolic, mathematical representation of what perception indicates to be, maybe, out there.

Dear Professor da Silva,

FQXi.org has labeled my work “OBNOXIOUS SPAM,” and removed it from several sites where I had posted it.

Sir, do you have a real complete skin surface? Does every animal, insect, and can of soda have a real complete surface? It is physically impossible to perceive a single real surface. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces. At each point where surfaces touch, a real sub-surface forms. All surface travels at the same constant speed. Each sub-surface travels at a unique speed that remains less than the constant speed of surface. That is why although everything is traveling at the same speed, each object remains in its own unique position.

Grateful that you read my comment and at least made an answer to it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

FQXi.org has labeled my work “OBNOXIOUS SPAM,” and removed it from several sites where I had posted it.

Sir, do you have a real complete skin surface? Does every animal, insect, and can of soda have a real complete surface? It is physically impossible to perceive a single real surface. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces. At each point where surfaces touch, a real sub-surface forms. All surface travels at the same constant speed. Each sub-surface travels at a unique speed that remains less than the constant speed of surface. That is why although everything is traveling at the same speed, each object remains in its own unique position.

Grateful that you read my comment and at least made an answer to it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jairo,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.