Dear John Hodge,

We need physics lead mathematics, not mathematics lead physics.

With best regards.

Mazen Khoder

The beauty is applied to physics as well a math.

Dear John,

Quite an interesting question.

Interesting in that in the context of mathematics, I also analyzed this issue, and like you, I came to a conclusion opposite to that of Sabine with respect to physical reality itself, but also about our idealized geometric and mathematics representations. But in the latter case, we must be careful that their beauty not fool us into taking them for the actual physical reality:

Quote from my last paper published just last week (page 398):

" All of these idealized geometric and mathematical concepts are of such perfection that their inherent esthetic beauty easily causes a loss of sight of the fact that they are virtual and do not directly reflect physical reality. It is important to resist the idea that the virtual idealized fields defined by Gauss could physically exist, for example, since the mechanics of their idealized conception from verbal generalizations is the proof that they simply are part of the nonverbal mathematical language that we collectively developed to visualize by imagination an idealized version of the physical reality of our environment, in order to measure and understand it. Care must always be taken while using it in describing physical processes to take into account the physical limits that really exist."

https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.102028

Best Regards

André

I agree whatever Andre stated here. However, I want to add that when I was working models algorithmizing probable theories, per what I have mentioned on other articles with this forum, there is a novel mathematical logic of metrix protocol that will convert logic to language, while set theory converts language to logic. These are necessary to match extended truth table in terms of {not false, true, not true, false} criteria. We want only to keep not false & true statements, filtering out the false, not true ones.

Metrix protocol helps quite a lot in that effort. In fact algorithmically IT programming may be done like excel sheet perhaps more on AI that will help to process statements much faster & hence a fool-proof way can be achieved to develop theoretical model after having abstractions borne out of observational physics. This is exactly where physics will lead mathematics. My analysis has shown quantum decoherence satisfies many of these important criteria. We will have to develop proforma or rule protocol to take into account better scientific methodology to model systems paradigm shifts what we are only partially or totally fundamentally disagreeing.

Hope having all these philosophical discussions lead to a grand breakthrough theory of everything in the near future of theory & experiment going hand together.

Dear Rajan,

You wrote: " Hope having all these philosophical discussions lead to a grand breakthrough theory of everything in the near future of theory & experiment going hand together."

I agree that this is the way to go.

My own conclusion is, as quoted in the last paragraph of my last referenced paper:

"The third conclusion is that it is possible to closely synchronize the idealized collective virtual environment resulting from the generalizations provided by the verbal thinking mode with the real environment, by means of the mathematical thinking mode as analyzed in the previous section, to accurately measure and understand collectively all aspects of the real environment."

Best Regards

André

Rajan Iyer André Michaud

Well said.

Examining Andre's papers a few days ago brought to mind a situation (I hesitate to call it a problem) that math isn't quite complete. Certainly, physics adds standard units to measurements and calculations. But math allows more processes such as transformation that is really hard to discern in the the general physics papers. But it is the unsaid assumptions that fill the gap of beauty. Good point about rule protocol.

Its beauty that may lead to breakthrus.