> The dominating idea in this application of mathematics to physics is that the equations representing the laws of motion should be of a simple form. The whole success of the scheme is due to the fact that equations of simple form do seem to work. The physicist is thus provided with a principle of simplicity, which he can use as an instrument of research.
> Occam's Razor as a Formal Basis for a Physical Theory
> We introduce the principle of Occam's Razor in a form which can be used as a basis for economical formulations of physics. This allows us to explain the general structure of the Lagrangian for a composite physical system, as well as some other artificial postulates behind the variational formulations of physical laws. As an example, we derive Hamilton's principle of stationary action together with the Lagrangians for the cases of Newtonian mechanics, relativistic mechanics and a relativistic particle in an external gravitational field.
"I would like to put forward a suggestion as to how such a scheme might be realized. If we express the present epoch, 2 x 109 years, in terms of a unit of time defined by the atomic constants, we get a number of the order 1039, which characterizes the present in an absolute sense. Might it not be that all present events correspond to properties of this large number, and, more generally, that the whole history of the universe corresponds to properties of the whole sequence of natural numbers? At first sight it would seem that the universe is far too complex for such a correspondence to be possible. But I think this objection cannot be maintained, since a number of the order 1039 is excessively complicated, just because it is so enormous. We have a brief way of writing it down, but this should not blind us to the fact that it must have excessivly complicated properties."
this cannot be an early hint to the result made by chaitin; Chaitin’s Incompleteness Theorem?
>but as time goes on it becomes increasingly evident that the rules which the mathematician finds interesting are the same as those which Nature has chosen
This is quantifiable, right? Should be possible to measure how many mathematicians favor ideas like turbulence, macroscopic quantum physics, anthropic principle, analog geometry, finitism. I think, mathematics doesn't really try to match physics yet.
there is a quote from Pauli about Dirac : 'There is no God and Dirac is his prophet' Heisenberg and Dirac had different opinions on the existence of a god and Pauli, asked for his opinion, had the former to say
”There is no logical reason why the second method should be possible at all, but one has found in practice that it does work and meets with reasonable success. This must be ascribed to some mathematical quality in Nature, a quality which the casual observer of Nature would not suspect, but which nevertheless plays an important role in Nature's scheme.”
I mean, Hume answers this, but so does time, and I guess they both answer it together. Our observed measurements are true for the certain time period we’re in and remain true while we are in that window. To conclude with Hume, it’s all true until it isn’t, in time (well I suppose even in timelessness, entire properties can change - even so, with respect to measuring, I believe that requires a physical step function so we can’t avoid time here :)).
Aside:
”This is a quality which cannot be defined, any more than beauty in art can be defined, but which people who study mathematics usually have no difficulty in appreciating.”
Thorough worshipping of Math and “Mathers”, like as if they are a gift from God. Again, let’s stick with Hume, you’re the shit until you’re not. Einstein went to death not understanding Physics as he wanted to.
Hey, I’m a programmer, I didn’t necessarily want robots to do my job either. God loves that essay Hume wrote, truly.
It’s all fun and games until God mindfucks your understanding.
This is probably a reference to Hume's problem of induction, i.e. that observing a regularity in the past cannot justify assuming that it will hold in the future. It's vaguely related to the article, but talking about "time windows" and "Mathers" muddles the point.
Is it vaguely related? He wondered why measuring anything even works. Why wouldn’t the measurement disappear, thus making all this measuring pointless? Because, apparently the measurement(s) are true each time-step, and it will be true for that time, until it’s not true. Why it reasonably works well for us? Well, God , I guess. Same way the Sun doesn’t burn our skin off (God, I guess, but some have issues with that).
Sorry, I had to critique that immediately because I could already see that other second paragraph I quoted coming, as in, this author probably worships Math, Science, and those that do it, certainly not God, because he was unable to characterize the phenomena of it as related to God.
Measurement works because universe moves in a simple way. As Hume indicates, you need very complex motion for irregularity, maybe even sentient, but sentient universe is fairy tale.
Yes, vaguely related. He's not wondering why measurement itself works, but why mathematical reasoning applies so effectively to the measurement results.
I think it's valid to be surprised that all observations of a physical phenomena up until this point have obeyed a beautiful and (relatively) simple mathematical relationship, without even thinking about predicting the future.
>There is no logical reason why the second method should be possible at all,
One reason I can think of is if we consider that some regularity in the physical behavior is required for consciousness to evolve and so consciousness only forms in such worlds.
> The dominating idea in this application of mathematics to physics is that the equations representing the laws of motion should be of a simple form. The whole success of the scheme is due to the fact that equations of simple form do seem to work. The physicist is thus provided with a principle of simplicity, which he can use as an instrument of research.
https://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0009007
> Occam's Razor as a Formal Basis for a Physical Theory
> We introduce the principle of Occam's Razor in a form which can be used as a basis for economical formulations of physics. This allows us to explain the general structure of the Lagrangian for a composite physical system, as well as some other artificial postulates behind the variational formulations of physical laws. As an example, we derive Hamilton's principle of stationary action together with the Lagrangians for the cases of Newtonian mechanics, relativistic mechanics and a relativistic particle in an external gravitational field.
"I would like to put forward a suggestion as to how such a scheme might be realized. If we express the present epoch, 2 x 109 years, in terms of a unit of time defined by the atomic constants, we get a number of the order 1039, which characterizes the present in an absolute sense. Might it not be that all present events correspond to properties of this large number, and, more generally, that the whole history of the universe corresponds to properties of the whole sequence of natural numbers? At first sight it would seem that the universe is far too complex for such a correspondence to be possible. But I think this objection cannot be maintained, since a number of the order 1039 is excessively complicated, just because it is so enormous. We have a brief way of writing it down, but this should not blind us to the fact that it must have excessivly complicated properties."
this cannot be an early hint to the result made by chaitin; Chaitin’s Incompleteness Theorem?
Related;
From Heisenberg to Goedel via Chaitin - https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402197
>but as time goes on it becomes increasingly evident that the rules which the mathematician finds interesting are the same as those which Nature has chosen
This is quantifiable, right? Should be possible to measure how many mathematicians favor ideas like turbulence, macroscopic quantum physics, anthropic principle, analog geometry, finitism. I think, mathematics doesn't really try to match physics yet.
there is a quote from Pauli about Dirac : 'There is no God and Dirac is his prophet' Heisenberg and Dirac had different opinions on the existence of a god and Pauli, asked for his opinion, had the former to say
There's a quote Atiyah has about spin geometry which he heard from his advisor Hodge, who had an office next to Dirac at Cambridge.
Only two people understand spinors: God, and Dirac. And Dirac's dead.
Shouldn't this have a "(1939)" suffix on the title according to HN rules? ;)
Should it though? I don't see such a rule.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
unwritten rules
Also see Relationship between Mathematics and Physics - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathemati...
Haven’t even made too far down, but:
”There is no logical reason why the second method should be possible at all, but one has found in practice that it does work and meets with reasonable success. This must be ascribed to some mathematical quality in Nature, a quality which the casual observer of Nature would not suspect, but which nevertheless plays an important role in Nature's scheme.”
I mean, Hume answers this, but so does time, and I guess they both answer it together. Our observed measurements are true for the certain time period we’re in and remain true while we are in that window. To conclude with Hume, it’s all true until it isn’t, in time (well I suppose even in timelessness, entire properties can change - even so, with respect to measuring, I believe that requires a physical step function so we can’t avoid time here :)).
Aside:
”This is a quality which cannot be defined, any more than beauty in art can be defined, but which people who study mathematics usually have no difficulty in appreciating.”
Thorough worshipping of Math and “Mathers”, like as if they are a gift from God. Again, let’s stick with Hume, you’re the shit until you’re not. Einstein went to death not understanding Physics as he wanted to.
Hey, I’m a programmer, I didn’t necessarily want robots to do my job either. God loves that essay Hume wrote, truly.
It’s all fun and games until God mindfucks your understanding.
This is probably a reference to Hume's problem of induction, i.e. that observing a regularity in the past cannot justify assuming that it will hold in the future. It's vaguely related to the article, but talking about "time windows" and "Mathers" muddles the point.
Is it vaguely related? He wondered why measuring anything even works. Why wouldn’t the measurement disappear, thus making all this measuring pointless? Because, apparently the measurement(s) are true each time-step, and it will be true for that time, until it’s not true. Why it reasonably works well for us? Well, God , I guess. Same way the Sun doesn’t burn our skin off (God, I guess, but some have issues with that).
Sorry, I had to critique that immediately because I could already see that other second paragraph I quoted coming, as in, this author probably worships Math, Science, and those that do it, certainly not God, because he was unable to characterize the phenomena of it as related to God.
Measurement works because universe moves in a simple way. As Hume indicates, you need very complex motion for irregularity, maybe even sentient, but sentient universe is fairy tale.
Yes, vaguely related. He's not wondering why measurement itself works, but why mathematical reasoning applies so effectively to the measurement results.
I think it's valid to be surprised that all observations of a physical phenomena up until this point have obeyed a beautiful and (relatively) simple mathematical relationship, without even thinking about predicting the future.
>There is no logical reason why the second method should be possible at all,
One reason I can think of is if we consider that some regularity in the physical behavior is required for consciousness to evolve and so consciousness only forms in such worlds.