|
A Mathematical Cosmos
Link |
by
on 2007-10-25 23:18:24 |
|
Since our universe can be "relevantly" explain through a huge calculation of formulas and numbers, does that mean that every "other" universe can also be defined by the same formulas? And if so, would the concepts of "numbers" apply equaly to them? I guess I'm asking your opinion on this topic, but I don't just want a simple, "yes" or "no," I need a little insight, because I can't exactly get my head around this...   "To bring you back into this world I’d break every rule Machines try to take me to hell I don’t really care I do it for love" dolly - HYDE <--- [ Naruto: Shippuden | NecroCircus ] ---> |
|
Re: A Mathematical Cosmos
Link |
by
on 2007-10-26 12:09:15 (edited 2007-10-26 12:22:54)
|
|
Ok, woah, slow down! Let's take this one step at a time: Q: Can the universe be relevantly explained using science? A: Yes, quite well, in fact. We can make elaborate predictions that describe the outcome of experiments to a surprising degree of accuracy. It is quite easy to "explain" nature in any random way. Science does more than explain, it gives us evidence to support the explanation and allows for testable predictions. This is, I would argue, more important than simply explaining. Q: Does science rely on huge calculations and formulas with numbers in them? A: Not necessarily, but the tool of mathematics as we know it is a human creation very well suited for use in science. A scientific theory can be translated into any sufficiently detailed language. The language of math is used in science where it is helpful. That's all. Q: Does it make sense to talk about "other" universes? A: Only if they are part of some testable theory. Otherwise, you're talking science-fiction, or, worse, pseudo-science. Q: Do other universes exist? A: I feel like this is, by its self, a stupid question. Q: Supposing the universe had different laws of nature, or, at least, different properties. What would geometry and physics be like in a universe of this sort? A: This is a good question! Geometry in a curved space, for example, takes on interesting properties, which do have practical use in, for example, the study of general relativity. Q: What is a "universe"? A: A tough question. It doesn't make sense to ask if other universes exist, but it is possible to imagine if the rules of ours were different. I think the best definition of a universe is a type of "well-defined system of nature", but this definition is quite flimsy. Q: Are there conceivable universes in which number theory does not apply? A: I really don't think so. Any well-defined system you can describe in, say, English, seems like it could be translated into the language of mathematics. This may or may not be provable, and I certainly don't have the background in language theory to prove it. Sorry! 
|
|
Re: A Mathematical Cosmos
|
| Well, numbers are defined by the people using them, so another universe would obviously have it's own number system, that could eventually be translated into our number system. In order for that to be impossible, their would need to be a difference between the two universes that we cannot conceive, like another dimension they can interact with perhaps? It's hard to think about, because in the end, our imagination is ultimately limited by reality. We can combine real things to make unrealistic things, for example a golden mountain (we know what gold looks like, and we know what a mountain looks like) but try imagining a color you've never seen before. |
|
Re: A Mathematical Cosmos
|
|
I suppose, gendou, that wherever there is a universe that obeys the laws of physics, number theory will exist. Languages invariably evolve on the lines of mathematics. Also, a universe is a "well-defined system of nature", but you can take an inductive leap and say that a universe is a "SELF-SUFFICIENT AND well-defined system of nature". As for the original question, I'm sure you must have heard of Divine Proportion, also called PHI or in numerical terms, 1.618. It's a fascinating number that mathematicians have found to be the underlying principle of many things. Here are some examples: In a beehive, no. of female bees/no. of male bees = 1.618 In a nautilus shell, ratio of each spiral's diameter to the next = 1.618 In the human body, the distance from tip of head to toe/the distance from belly button to the floor = 1.618 Also, hip to floor/Knee to floor = 1.618 In geometry, a pentagram's lines automatically divide themselves into segments according to PHI. Amazing,isn't it?   --> |
|
Re: A Mathematical Cosmos
|
|
I read somewhere a good sentence which I can hardly forget: Mathematics are the language of human logic, not the logic of the universe. Also, in my opinion, it is impossible to us to describe the universe, because we are part of it >> it is more complicated than us (>> we can't even understand ourselves.) If we understand more of it, we will become more complicated, so the whole universe will be more complicated. I suppose if we would understand ourselves, and there aren't any supernatural beings like gods, aliens etc, it would be possible to find the 'universal rule', but we are not capable of understanding it in it's full form. We would have to divide it into pieces to understand it. Also, we couldn't predict accurately, because we would have to know the result of the prediction, and the result of knowing the result of the prediction, and other circular stuff... What we know so far are some partial rules, like physics, biology, chemistry, and we can't bring them together. However, biology can be described by physical and chemical rules, and chemistry can described with physical rules... I see a future in that :) |