Re: MD "Is there anything out there?"

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Tue Jan 04 2005 - 20:29:37 GMT

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "Re: MD "Is there anything out there?""
  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "MD That e / i / pi relationship"

    Err, Mark
    (and Platt who seemed to like your explanation ...)
    (and Rich who choked on his tea ...) :-)

    I'm with Rich, you can't really believe that simplistic explanation of
    numerical relationships underlying quantum physics, end of story, can you.

    Factually - I believe the identity (equation) you are referring to is more
    like ...
    The intergral of e to the i pi, from zero to two pi, equals minus one

    (Not just e to the i pi equals minus one)
    (e to the i pi itself cannot itself equal anything meaningful can it ? The
    integral is a geometric construct - a metaphor - in the complex plane, if I
    recall correctly)
    (Which interestingly I blogged about the beauty of myself - some years ago -
    it first hit me between the eyes around 30 years ago - spooky coincidence.)

    Even when (if) we can agree we've expressed the identity right - I'm
    surprised to find it behind quantum mechanics - wave motion maybe, but ..
    And finally, whilst I support the concept that physics underlies everything
    (by axiomatic definition) quantum physics is not (necessarily) the final
    word on the matter.

    Most interesting for me is that Platt sees some explanation of "why
    imaginary numbers underly empirical reality" Huh ?
    Predictably I still see no "reason why" even if your explanation were true,
    just an explanation of a relationship which "happens to be" (if it happened
    to be true)

    Ian

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 2:27 AM
    Subject: RE: MD "Is there anything out there?"

    > Hi Platt, Paul, all
    >
    > Platt said:
    > My question is, how do you explain that mathematics, a creation of
    > human intellect, is able to so accurately model those preferences? Is
    > it simply a mystery, or is there rationale for the relationship
    > between inorganic preferences and mathematical formulas? To me it
    > appears to be a relationship of cosmic and human intelligence that I
    > know you reject. So I'm asking for your alternative explanation.
    >
    > Paul:
    > The mathematical formulae that have been selected for explanation of
    > inorganic phenomena are selected and developed for that very purpose
    > aren't they? Don't physicists keep trying until they can predict the
    > results of an experiment with more and more precision i.e., with
    > higher quality? As I understand it, there are always many competing
    > formulae and theories for any given set of data. The best ones are
    > kept. Is it really a mystery?
    >
    >
    > msh says:
    > Actually, the relationship between math and the "underlying reality"
    > of the physical world is considerably more startling than this. I'll
    > try to make this as painless as possible:
    >
    > All that's necessary to start counting is the ability to distinguish
    > one thing from another. From counting comes our notion of number,
    > and all the integers, which we add, subtract, multiply, divide. From
    > this simple arithmetic comes the concepts of zero and infinity; and
    > beyond zero, the negative numbers. And there are numbers between the
    > integers, fractions like 1/2, 2/3, the so-called rational numbers
    > because they can be expressed as the ratio of two integers. Between
    > the rational numbers lie an infinity of transcendental numbers that
    > cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers, for example "pi" (the
    > ratio of the circumference of any circle to its diameter), and "e"
    > the base of natural logs.
    >
    > Also, every positive number has a square root, the number that when
    > multiplied by itself gives you your number. But when mathematicians
    > discovered that no number multiplied by itself gives a negative, they
    > defined the square root of minus one to be a totally new "imaginary"
    > number, and gave it the symbol "i". All of this is derived without
    > measuring anything in the real world, yet it was discovered that
    > imaginary numbers proved invaluable in helping mathematicians solve
    > equations that were perfectly descriptive of empirical reality.
    >
    > But here's where things start getting really spooky. Out of this non
    > empirical realm of numbers an astounding relationship appears. The
    > irrational number "pi", the irrational number "e", and the imaginary
    > number "i", come together in one of the simplest equations ever: e
    > ^ i (pi) = -1, that is "e to the power of i times pi = -1".
    >
    > That these three numbers should be related in this way is startling
    > enough, but there's more. The whole of quantum physics depends upon
    > this simple equation. It is the basic equation of any wave motion, a
    > wave on water, the sound waves coming from an air raid siren, or
    > electromagnetic radiation. The motion of any wave can be expressed
    > as a concatenation of such simple equations. AND, this equation
    > expresses the orbits of the planets, the swing of a pendulum and the
    > oscillation of an atom. In fact, the way I understand it, every
    > motion in the cosmos can be described by an equation of this form.
    > Remember now, this equation was derived without empirical measurement
    > of any kind, so it was clearly not a matter of "tweaking" the
    > equation till they got it right.
    >
    > Anyway, here endeth the lecture. Sorry. But this is pretty amazing
    > stuff, really, and it's not so hard to see why some mathematicians
    > might feel that God is to be found in the beauty and perfection of
    > mathematics. IMO, he very fact that math is NOT phenomenal in nature
    > is why it's a serious contender for getting a glimpse at the
    > "underlying reality" of the cosmos, if there is such a thing. And,
    > though it may be true that "there is nothing out there" you can
    > understand why mathematicians and scientists have a hard time with
    > the "reality is an illusion" syndrome.
    >
    > Anyway, if anyone wants more info about all of this, or if you just
    > think I'm crazy and wanna check up on me, I can provide some links.
    >
    > As usual, TIA for any thoughts.
    >
    > Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
    > --
    > InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    > Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    > Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
    >
    >
    > "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw,
    > We come from nowhere and to nothing go."
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 04 2005 - 20:56:27 GMT