The statement "everything in the world is made of mathematics" is a philosophical assertion and can be interpreted in different ways. Mathematics is a fundamental tool used to describe and understand various aspects of the natural world and the universe. It is a language for modeling and quantifying various phenomena.

In a sense, one could argue that mathematics underlies the fundamental principles governing the physical world, and it plays a crucial role in our scientific understanding of reality. Many natural phenomena can be described and predicted using mathematical equations and models.

However, it's also important to recognize that not everything in the world can be reduced to mathematics. Many aspects of human experience, culture, emotions, and subjective consciousness cannot be fully captured or explained by mathematical equations. Mathematics is a powerful tool, but it is a tool for description and understanding, not the source or essence of everything in the world.

So, whether the statement is true or false depends on the interpretation and context in which it is used. Mathematics is an incredibly useful and powerful tool for understanding and describing the world, but it doesn't encompass every aspect of reality.

Kwadwo Boakye, in view of the comprehensive answer mentioned above by Baqer Al-hadrawi, and given the attachment info, you have 46% chances for "true" and near twice less for 'false'.

True and False. Depending on an established frame of reference...

---

"Everything in the world is made of mathematics."

This statement can be likened to saying, "Every story in the world is made of words." While words (or math) can describe stories (or phenomena), they aren't the stories themselves. Let's explore further:

1. **Mathematics Describes the World**:

- **Equation**: \( F = ma \) (Newton's second law of motion)

- This equation describes how an object will move (its acceleration, \( a \)) based on the force \( F \) applied to it and its mass \( m \). However, while the equation describes motion, the actual sensation of movement, like the wind against your face when you run, isn't "made" of this equation.

2. **Mathematics is Abstract**:

- **Example**: The concept of a circle. Mathematically, a circle is described by \( x^2 + y^2 = r^2 \). But this equation doesn't capture the beauty of a sunset circle or the warmth of a pizza base.

3. **Philosophical Perspectives**:

- **Platonism**: Imagine a realm where the perfect form of the number "3" exists, untouched by the imperfections of the world.

- **Formalism**: Think of math as a game of chess. The pieces and rules are set, but the game's outcome isn't inherent in the pieces themselves.

- **Constructivism**: Envision building a sandcastle (mathematical concept) on a beach. Over time, the tides (external influences) might reshape it, but its core structure remains.

4. **Limitations of Mathematics**:

- **Quantum Mechanics**: The dual nature of light, behaving both as a particle and a wave, is described by the wave function \( \Psi \). Yet, the true essence of quantum phenomena remains one of the universe's greatest enigmas.

**Creativity**: Imagine if our emotions had mathematical formulas. Love might be the sum of shared experiences, multiplied by attraction, divided by misunderstandings. This whimsical notion underscores that math is a tool, and like any tool, its application can be both rigorous and imaginative.

Well it can be construed as such. Time and space determines matter. What ever we do can be measured in terms of time which is mathematical in nature i.e seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, seasons and years. This determines how fast or slow our life can be. Space has connotations on matter i.e. length, width and depth. So often time and space intermingle and so we have speed, acceleration, filling up etc. Most of the things we do require mathematical solutions but we are so used to them that we sometimes ignore that we subconsciously undertake mathematical calculations when crossing a road, sharing food to ensure each one has something to bite. The mathematical symbols somehow frighten a good number of people and so they are just put off and wont even try to understand them.

Dear Kwadwo Boakye, I fully agree with Baqer Al-hadrawi. I would just like to add and underline that mathematics and geometry are very powerful tools for investigation, practically, in all fields of human knowledge. For example, finding out whether the geometry of the universe is elliptical, spherical, hyperbolic, etc., is equivalent to establishing whether the universe will expand forever or whether at a certain moment, it will implode. Furthermore, we could also answer the two questions: what is the space, and what time is.

True. Everything that exists is based on relations. And those are mathematical entities.

It's a partial truth.

We can write a mathematical model for almost everyone. For example, we can write a model to visualize the evolution of the number of electric vehicles by 2050, but the reality may be different from what the model says. This is what is called trans-science. Mathematical models go as far as reality can change them. Biological effects can be modeled as far as biological reality allows. It's what I call the "epsilon effect," or sampling error.

Whether or not everything in the world is made of mathematics is a complex question that has been debated by philosophers and scientists for centuries.

On the one hand, mathematics is an incredibly powerful tool for describing and understanding the physical world. For example, the laws of physics are all expressed in mathematical terms. Additionally, mathematics is used to design and build many of the technologies that we rely on every day, from computers and smartphones to bridges and airplanes.

On the other hand, there are some aspects of the physical world that seem to defy mathematical explanation. For example, the phenomenon of consciousness is still not fully understood, and it is not clear whether it can be adequately described in mathematical terms.

Additionally, some people argue that mathematics is simply a human invention, and that it does not reflect any underlying reality. They argue that the fact that we can use mathematics to describe the physical world does not necessarily mean that the physical world is made of mathematics.

Ultimately, whether or not everything in the world is made of mathematics is a matter of philosophical interpretation. There is no scientific consensus on this issue.

Pour ceux qui croient en l'islam, il y a un verset dans le Coran qui dit que tout ce qui se passe sur terre et dans l'univers est quantifié par des nombres. Voici la traduction exacte du verset : "... Afin qu'ils sachent qu'ils ont communiqué les messages de leur Seigneur, et qu'Il a embrassé tout ce qui est en leur possession, et qu'Il a dénombré toutes choses en nombre". Le verset parle ici de tous les prophètes.

true

Every thing in the "observable universe" (let us say this instead of "world") comes first. Then we invent math to agree with what we learned. There are a lot of successes done by brilliant people throughout history. But, as already pointed out in previous posts in this thread, there are still questions that don't yet have math answers (like consciousness). However, in the domain of what is physically observable (so we exclude spiritual stuff) I think that unanswered questions (like the measurement problem in quantum mechanics) could be represented with math after we get smart enough to figure out how to do it. I am less optimistic about using math for spiritual stuff.

In another thread in RG I postulated that there is such a thing as "inborn logic" having nothing to do with the observable universe. A specific example is: If a set A is a subset of another set B, which is a subset of another set C, then A is a subset of C. A response to my post (I'm sorry for not remembering the person's name to give him credit for this) is that we first need to see some part of the observable universe before we can even comprehend the meaning of a "set". So, even when it comes to what I thought is inborn logic, the observable universe still needs to come first. Then we try to figure out what kinds of math to represent it.

It may be useful to add to L.D. Edmonds's previous post that the given example is an instance of transitivity, which is a property of relations in mathematics. In particular, a binary relation R on a set A is a subset of the Cartesian product AxA of A with itself; i.e., R is a subset of the set {(x,y): x and y belong to A}. If for some x and y that belong to A, the ordered pair (x,y) belongs to the relation R, then we say that x is related to y (by the relation R) and we write xRy. Now, if for every x,y, and z belong to A, if xRy and yRz, then xRz, then the relation R is said to be transitive. On sets, we define a relation “being a subset”; i.e., a set x is related to a set y if x is a subset of y. This relation is denoted by the subset symbol and it is transitive, which means that if a set x is a subset of a set y and the set y is a subset of a set z, then the set x is a subset of the set z, which is what L.D. Edmonds wrote as an instance of “inborn logic”. Furthermore, there exists plenty of “inborn logic” in formal (i.e., symbolic) logic, too, with the inference rules of natural deduction being an example.

Yes. Everything is patterns. Everything is math. Language and syntax are algebraic equations. And storytelling is math just like Let x statements. Study and analyzing results, gathering data, tracking outcomes in certain instances is math. So what isn’t math?

I'm not sure if consciousness is math. Different people have different opinions as to how physical versus how spiritual consciousness is. Depending on a person's opinion on this, consciousness may or may not be seen as math. I'm not taking sides on this because I don't know. I am just saying maybe.

By the way, the physical brain invents the stories which are patterns that might be called math. Some people make a distinction between the physical brain and consciousness. Again, I'm not taking sides because I don't know so I am just saying maybe.

I dont think I can answer this question any better than @Baqer Al-hadrawi has answered it when he writes: "... Many aspects of human experience, culture, emotions, and subjective consciousness cannot be fully captured or explained by mathematical equations. Mathematics is a powerful tool, but it is ... not the source or essence of everything in the world."

Even if our thoughts, feelings, emotions could be approximated or mathematized, IMHO, I think/feel/conjecture that any such model would always lack a key essence -- an essence that goes beyond any human experience.

Some of the above cited examples might be described by math (if we get smart enough to do it) because physical brains react to things. Of the above examples I think consciousness is the most likely candidate for not being describable by math.

Re: L.D. Edmonds: "...consciousness is the most likely candidate for not being describable by math."

Actually, Charles Muses contended that each of his hypernumbers represented a new type of consciousness, including i= sqrt(-1). I also have made rudimentary attempts at mathematizing consciousness.

Mathematics itself is a language of science and technology. Everything can be expressed in mathematical equations. But it may happen that we are unable to understand and interpret it. Atmosphere and nature are also designed by using Mathematical theory.

My concept of consciousness is about feeling, not the imaginary number, but I won't argue about that.

However, unanswered questions in science means we haven't invented the math yet but does not imply that we never will. So I would exclude unanswered questions in physics, biology and so on, as examples in which the math does not exist.

Strongly disagree.

The most important facts in science

Emerge after long practical experience

As the table of elements.

Yo creo que totalmente verdadero,

Hay un artículo en Researchgate "Física en Campo Complejo", DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6452643” donde se aborda la física del universo desde el punto de vista de su formulación matemática.

Te incluyo un par de párrafos del capítulo de introducción de dicho artículo:

"Consideramos el universo, como el campo donde se mueven e interaccionan el conjunto de partículas elementales que lo conforman. La formulación de las leyes de la física, define el conjunto de fórmulas que determinan la posición e interacción entre partículas.

El primer criterio básico que asumimos es que el universo esta formulado en variables de espacio tiempo, con un instante inicial de formulación. Además de estas variables, hay que darle una identidad al concepto mismo de definición de partículas, que en nuestro caso lo asociamos a singularidades matemáticas en el campo complejo.

A partir de este primer criterio básico, estamos reduciendo el concepto mismo de universo a una formulación matemática con sus variables espacio tiempo y con un instante inicial de formulación. Esta formulación matemática del universo debe de estar implementada en un contexto externo a la misma, que identificaremos como exoporte del universo, el cual debe de tener una entidad diferente a la entidad matemática que en él se formula, es decir, no estará conformado en términos de variables de espacio tiempo, ni de partículas."

I just thought of an example in the observable universe that might not be predictable via math. We already have math for calculating the probabilities of various outcomes when performing measurements in quantum mechanics. But we don't have any way to predict definite outcomes with certainty (excluding special cases in which the measured quantity is a quantity that the system was prepared to have a definite value of). One possibility is that this inability to make such predictions is due to our ignorance. Another possibility (which I think is the most poplar belief) is that outcomes with certainty are unknowable (excluding the special cases) and can never be known no matter how smart we get. If the second possibility, then there is no math, no matter how smart we get, for predicting outcomes with certainty.

So now the candidates I am thinking of are consciousness and quantum systems. Macro-systems are more deterministic than quantum systems so maybe the list of candidates does not need to be expanded. Or, maybe it does?

Probabilistic/statisticle methods are used in CM as well.

No point of following every little gas molecule in detail.(in a gas)

I don't think that is the point of the question of this thread. Although it is not useful to follow every gas molecule, we could do that in classical mechanics if we have unlimited computing power and initial conditions are given in enough detail. The math is there to do that. I think the question of this thread is whether the math exists for everything (it need not be known in order to exist so unanswered questions in science are not necessarily examples that are impossible to represent by math). I think the exceptions might be consciousness and determinism of observations in quantum systems. Macro-systems are excluded as exceptions as long as our only questions to be answered by math are about macroscopic quantities.

Manuel

Como vas a tener

Carga,masa, spin etc

De solo un polo en el campo

Complejo?

En el artículo "Física en Campo Complejo", DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6452643", se establece el desarrollo matemático justificativo.

Te ánimo, a que leas con cierto detenimiento, el artículo, en un principio puede resultar un tanto difícil de seguir dado que son conceptos totalmente novedosos, pero al final una vez que se ha comprendido el concepto, puede resolver muchas preguntas sobre los conceptos matemáticos básicos de definición de la física incluida la interacción entre partículas.

Kwadwo Boakye Manuel Alcantud-Abellán Juan Weisz L.D. Edmonds Haribhau R. Bhapkar

No,

Math plays a pivotal role in understanding and describing the world but it is not accurate to claim that everything in the world is made of mathematics. The world encompasses a broader range of phenomena and concepts that extend beyond the scope of mathematics alone.

Example: 2 statements

1. 0(zero) is Something and

2. 0(zero) is Nothing

How will we prove or disprove only with Math? We can't

Manuel

En realidad, en matemática, se dice cuerpo de los complejos.(corpus), que implica una serie de axiomas.

Para la Física se deben tener definiciones y conceptos físicos, como un Campo de vectores.( vector field),

y que las variables llevan unidades Físicas. Así pues el lenguaje es muy distinto. Lleva tiempo desarrollar los conceptos

físicos. Es imposible que los Complejos cumplan con todo lo necesario, por ejemplo para campo eléctrico en

tres dimensiones que generan las cargas eléctricas. Para eso es el análisis vectorial, y las leyes de Maxwell.

La teoría de la “Física en Campo Complejo”, que se describe en el artículo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.6452643, es una nueva teoría, donde la formulación de la física está basada en el establecimiento de conceptos matemáticos que responden a la experimentación física, por ejemplo, el concepto de campo gravitatorio o campo electrostático generado por toda partícula, o teorías como la de la relatividad.

En esta nueva teoría se sigue un procedimiento diferente, de forma que se establece para toda partícula un contexto de campo complejo y es dentro de este contexto matemático donde se obtiene la formulación física de toda partícula de campo, definiendo conceptos como posición o interacción entre partículas, verificando que el resultado responde a la experimentación física.

En esta nueva teoría el concepto de partícula está asociado a singularidades del plano complejo, Toda partícula tiene un coeficiente de giro, con una parte real asociada a su masa y parte imaginaria asociada a su carga eléctrica, y define además un vector director del plano complejo de la singularidad dentro de un campo isométrico 3D.

La interacción entre partículas está asociada a las ecuaciones de interacción, definiendo la ecuación de potencial como ecuación principal de interacción, equivalente a la ecuación de suma de residuos en matemática compleja.

And, agreeing with Cosmin Visan's answer, I still don't know if Consciousness is amenable to mathematization. Perhaps in part, but not all -- is my gut feel/ answer.

La entidad creacionista del universo es una entidad inmaterial que bajo nuestro punto de vista de universo material concebimos como una entidad abstracta. Un ejemplo de entidad inmaterial y abstracta que asumimos con cierta lógica, es el dado por la matemática analógica, que se hace presente en todos los aspectos materiales de nuestro universo definidos en variables de espacio tiempo, pero en donde a su vez la matemática analógica la asumimos y concebimos como una entidad inmaterial, cuya existencia está por encima y es independiente de la propia existencia material del universo.

If i understand Manuel A-A correctly, his last sentence is saying that our math allows us to assume and conceive a non-material entity, whose existence is above and independent of the material existence of the universe itself. In that case, shouldn't we redefine our notion of Universe to include all such non-material aspects?

John. Por supuesto que el concepto de universo deberá ser replanteado en el futuro, para contemplar la entidad creacionista del mismo, aunque dicha entidad quede fuera de nuestra capacidad de análisis y conocimiento. De momento parece que nos debemos limitar a tratar de entender la entidad creada del universo, o entidad material, donde posiblemente estemos lejos de llegar a contemplar un conocimiento aceptable de la misma.

Manuel, perhaps you are right when you suggest that we must limit ourselves to trying to understand the created entity of the universe, ... where possibly we are far from reaching an acceptable knowledge of it. To me, your implied distinction is valuable: between "created entity" and pehaps "Creation and Creating entity".

Yes, maybe that notion is too inclusive for now.