From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Wed Jan 05 2005 - 21:35:19 GMT
Oh yeah, Mark, mistaken identity, and Platt ...
Anyway, we're in good company in seeing the startling aspects of the Euler
identity - Feynman said the same.
No problem with the fact of the Euler identity itself (I was originally
mis-remembering a different derived equation, in steady state flow), but
it's only an identity in the geometric construct of an "imaginary" complex
plane. The moot point was not so much that it is used to derive Schroedinger
and plenty of other QM relationships, no argument there, more a question of
whether it actually "explained" anything fundamental about how QM works. ie
Is it actually getting close to answering any "why" type questions. I still
think not.
I think the other line in this thread about the interaction with the human
mind is closer to that, which brings us to ....
Platt - I do in fact believe in a cosmic consciousness, or something very
like it - either an "information" based physics underlying the physics
already accepted, or some emergent net effect of all the individual
consciousnesses in the world. If we ever get close to agreeing that to be
true, and an explanation of underlying or emergent intent, I might as I have
said, happily use the label "God" for it. All I am anti (and paranoid about)
is people who START from the premise of a transcendent intentional
intelligence, to explain somthing they cannot explain by their current
imperfect knowledge of physics.
In the interest of you and me getting on at least speaking terms, I'd like
to try out typical scientific "why" questions and answers with you - like
the one you suggest "Why is the sky blue". A scientist can explain that by
the fit of the numbers to the physics of the "processes" involved. Processes
which happen through causal metaphors, but not the "intent" of any cosmic
consciousness. They happen because the numbers fit. Are you game ?
Notwithstanding whether you or I actually do know the correct physics behind
that phenomenon, how would a well intentioned scientist explain it ? (Platt)
(Questions like what happened to start the existence of anything in the
first place, I agree are spookily difficult for just about any scientist,
and whilst it's tempting to reach for an omnipotent prior intelligence, I
suspect that question will turn out to be irrelevant when we can explain and
understand that time is just an illusion, that doesn't really have a
beginning, or an end.)
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: MD "Is there anything out there?"
> Hi Ian,
>
> I think you're responding to me, not Paul... Anyway, just for
> clarification for any math buffs out there...
>
>
> On 5 Jan 2005 at 11:49, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>
> Hmmm Paul,
> We may have to agree to differ, (but I'm no mathematician)
> I don't see the Euler identity stated or proven on that page, merely
> lots of example integrals that use variants of it,
>
> msh says:
> Well, Euler is proved elsewhere. The Schroedinger page shows that
> Euler is necessary to even begin to describe quantum behavior, thus
> my original point that Quantum Mechanics relies on Euler. BTW, this
> idea is hardly MINE in any sense. I believe it's pretty well accepted
> that Schroedinger opened the door to QM, and his equations don't work
> without Euler.
>
>
> ian:
> Whether the Euler identity underlies Schroedinger and Quantum Physics
> in any direct significant way, or merely indirectly through its
> integrals being a useful was to represent wave equations which do
> underly them is a moot point...
>
> msh says:
> Maybe moot, but mysterious and interesting, is my point.
>
>
> ian:
> but hey ... that wasn't really the point was it (whatever the actual
> maths) the point as you say was ...
>
> "Isn't it wonderful / amazing / awesome (spooky even) that such
> maths underlies so much reality" Which we seem to agree on.
>
> msh says:
> I think this was Paul, but yep, I agree.
>
> ian:
> What we don't seem to agree on are the "significance" of the
> "underlyingness" itself, and "explanations of why".
> For me the maths works, is useful, consistent, repeatable,
> predictable, etc is enough reason to believe, enough explanation.
> Others seem to have some "cosmic purpose" in mind for an answer.
>
> msh says:
> I don't see and never have proposed any "cosmic purpose." Quite the
> opposite, in fact: I think we make our own purposes. As for Euler,
> I'm just a guy from Jersey kicking around some equations; I'll leave
> the deep theoretical thinking to the deep theoretical thinkers.
>
>
> Best,
> 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."
>
>
> > Hi Ian, and all,
> >
> > No. The identity, as proved by Euler, is e ^ (i * pi) = -1,
> > although his famous and quite remarkable formula is often written
> as
> > e ^ (i * pi) + 1 = 0.
> >
> > What I said was that various forms of this equation show up in a
> > wide variety of mathematical formulae describing all sorts of
> > motion, including waves, pendulums, and planets, sometimes as part
> > of an integral. The connection to Quantum Mechanics is through
> > Schroedinger's wave equation, which you can see discussed here:
> >
> > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SchroedingerEquation.html
> >
> > If you look at the 35 or so lines on this page, you'll find
> > formulations of Euler all over the place.
> >
> > What's spooky to me and others is that an equation arrived at
> > through pure number theory should prove so useful in solving so
> many
> > previously intractable equations with direct applications in the
> > real world.
> >
> > But, as I've already said, I'm not suggesting this means God loves
> > math or something. I'm not sure what it means, if anything. This
> > apparent symmetry between math and physical reality may just be a
> > result of the fact that we our imaginative selves are an
> inseparable
> > part of the phenomena we are trying to describe, an idea that I
> > think will appeal to Paul and DMB. I just don't know... but I
> find
> > it interesting.
> >
> > I'm waiting to hear back from my math genius friend; he may very
> > well agree with you and tell me I'm all wet.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > 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."
> >
> >
> > On 4 Jan 2005 at 20:29, Ian Glendinning wrote:
> >
> > 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
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 : Thu Jan 06 2005 - 08:45:03 GMT