Search FQXi


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.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 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: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for sharing Georgina,it is nice.Friendly" in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Mathematics, the Oracle of Physics by Jairo Jose da Silva [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jairo Jose da Silva wrote on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 14:03 GMT
Essay Abstract

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.

Author Bio

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.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Jairo Jose da Silva wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 18:14 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share



Alan M. Kadin wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 15:12 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jairo Jose da Silva replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 10:01 GMT
Thanks, Alan. Please read my reply below.

Bookmark and Share



Author Jairo Jose da Silva wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 03:18 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 15:55 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jairo Jose da Silva wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 17:46 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 15:30 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 15:47 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.