Smolin's ideas that physics deals too much with geometrical terms in its answers to questions and that even time is seen as a space dimension and not real have important repercussions.
It means that dynamics, in all its utility& successful description of the world, distorts in this description the view of the world to something that may even lead to unrealist perceptions & these like time being a mere label and its reality undermined
Of course science by definition is the field that asks answerable questions or preframes questions in way that answers are possible, in this case via geometrical terms i. E "how force affects the curve of motion".
So the bottom line, i. E to do science, is saved
Physics uses the best mathematical tools to develop theories to explain previous experimental data in a way that can be used to make predictions that can be falsified in future experiments. A theory is of little use if it cannot be tested and falsified. A physical theory than cannot be falsified is not science, it is metaphysics. The reason that any mathematical discipline appears in physical theories is simply it proves the tools in which to describe the theory in such a way it a) be used to make testable predictions that can be used to falsify the theory so it can be discarded or refined. Functional analysis - particularly Hilbert space theory is an extremely useful too in describing quantum theory. However, in and of itself it is incomplete for quantum field theory. Differential geometry is an important tool to describe general relativity theory and a merger of functional analysis and differential geometry provide powerful mathematical theories for the quest for a unified field theory. The current best candidate theory is string theory. Is it correct, only the experiments will determine that. The reality of physics can only be determined after the observation is made through the experiment.
Yes, it would be amost impossible to get rid of basic background ideas of space and time altogether.
Smolin's ideas are certainly thought-provoking and have sparked much discussion in the physics community. The notion that physics deals too much with geometrical terms and that time is seen as a space dimension is a reflection of the mathematical framework that underlies modern physics. In particular, the theory of relativity treats time and space as part of a single four-dimensional space-time, which can be described mathematically using geometric concepts.
However, as Smolin has pointed out, this mathematical framework can lead to certain philosophical implications and may have important repercussions for our understanding of the world. For example, the view that time is just a label can be seen as a challenge to our everyday experience of time as a continuous and meaningful aspect of our lives. It may also raise questions about the nature of causality and the directionality of time.
It's worth noting, however, that many physicists and philosophers have taken issue with Smolin's ideas, arguing that they oversimplify the complex relationship between physics and the world we experience. While it's certainly important to be aware of the limitations and assumptions of any scientific theory, it's also important to recognize the successes of modern physics in describing and predicting the behavior of the world around us. Ultimately, the debate around Smolin's ideas highlights the ongoing dialogue between science and philosophy, and the importance of interdisciplinary thinking in understanding the world.
Let s remember, Newtons technique was almost entirely geometrical.
Since then analtical (Lagrange) and algebraic methods have come
far more into the foreground.
Some persons tend to think geoetrically, others more analytically. You can not do without both.
When we look around our environment, we see/sense things with borders (count - algebra - discrete math) and we see the things and their relation to each other (continuous - geometry). Our survival is enhanced by correctly predicting events around us. So, using the reality of the universe in our created math (both discrete counting and geometry) helps. It's when we want to use counting method to describe geometry do we use approximations which lead to problems. For example, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle.
Or it’s … with respect to the former answer of John Hodge mabye even the other round:
„… it's when we want to use counting method to describe geometry do we use approximations which lead to problems. For example, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle.“
In any (hypothetical or actually) fully discretized (think LEGO) style world the Integration (read - continuum) is in in fact the approximation while thinking and calculating everything discrete (even if this initially sounds absurd to be able to do at first sight) then summation is actually the only correct way to go for - and even more so in the most natural way actually reflecting reality.
See my RG home project on iSpace theory, able to calculate constants of nature from first principles if you still think this is a theoretical debate only:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/iSpace-Exact-quantum-geometric-value-of-primary-constants-of-nature
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics